Home / Evolution Vs. Creation: Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham

Evolution Vs. Creation: Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham

Evolution Vs. Creation: Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham

Bill Nye pits his view on evolution against Ken Ham’s view on creation.

Evolution Vs. Creation: Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham

Evolution Vs. Creation: Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham
Image on Youtube

Bill Nye, more commonly known as “The Science Guy,” is an American science educator amongst other positions like T.V. host, actor, writer, and scientist.  Bill Nye was the recipient of the Humanist of the Year Award in 2010.  He served as Vice President of The Planetary Society, and has been a speaker at various events.

Ken Ham is a young-Earth creationist.  He is the president of the Creation Museum.  He has written books such as The Lie: Evolution, Already Compromised, and One Race One Blood.  The main belief that he advocates is that the Earth was created around 6,000 years ago.

Both sides speak on the numerous points that each side advocates.  Regardless of which side you support, it is difficult to persuade the other side due to the points being so fundamentally different.  Watch the video of Evolution Vs. Creation: Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham to enlighten yourself on the main points of each side.  Although this debate is far from over, it is interesting to discover how each side supports their theories.  Bill Nye and Ken Ham provide an exceptional example of this in their philosophical debate.

Video Evolution Vs. Creation: Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham courtesy of YouTube

 Evolution Vs. Creation: Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham.




About Katana Sohma

  • bgrnathan

    WHAT I SAID TO KEN HAM on Twitter about his debate will Bill Nye:

    Ken, the difference between us and evolutionists is not just interpretation of scientific evidence. That’s only part of it.

    There is positive evidence we’re here by intelligent design and creation. That positive evidence should have been presented.

    I do thank God for your life changing and God honoring ministry. I wish you became more specific with the positive evidence.

    “You presented a well philosophical perspective but didn’t show the science refuting macro-evolution and supporting creation. ”

    “Information, in any form, is positive evidence for intelligent origin.
    That’s what DNA is. Even Carl Sagan said sequential radio signals would
    be evidence of intelligent origin. What about the sequence of molecules
    in the genetic code? ”

    Richard Dawkins feared that Bill Nye
    wouldn’t win the debate if it revolved around biology, but Ken Ham never
    got around to the biological evidence, especially regarding DNA and how
    the sequence of molecules in DNA, making it a code, is powerful prima
    facie evidence for intelligent origin and cause.

    Ken Ham has a
    great ministry with his website. How sad that he did not use information
    from his own site to refute Nye. It’s just too sad!

    • gcomeau

      The reason positive evidence that we are here through “intelligent design/creation” was not presented is because it simply does not exist. People who think it does have a severe misunderstanding of how evidence works.

      Of course I would not expect that to slow Ham down considering little things like fundamental facts never get in the way of any of his claims.

      Information existing is not in even the remotest manner evidence for creation or intelligent design. Sagan said very specific types of *non naturally occurring* signals would be evidence of intelligence for precisely the reason that they have to be differentiated from the types of signals we know there are non intelligent natural mechanisms to produce. (Like the periodic signals from pulsars for example)

      DNA sequencing has a very well understood natural mechanism to produce it. It is thus not evidence of intelligence at work writing people’s DNA, except to people who either have no understanding of genetics, or deliberately mislead about the topic (usually because they have coincidentally written a book they’d like a lot of creationists to but from them… or just because they’ve decided they need to to keep from facing a conflict between reality and their religious beliefs.)

      • aedgeworth

        Evidence we were designed is as plain as the nose on your face. The human nose is more complex than a Boeing 747. The human brain has more connections to it than there are stars in the universe. Just one brain cell can hold 5 times as much information as the Encyclopedia Britannica. By accident for no purpose? People who cannot see evidence of design all around them are willingly ignorant.

        There is no known mechanism that produces the information code found in DNA. Which came first DNA or protein? It requires the DNA code to build protein, but it requires protein to build DNA.

        Creationists believe the origin of the universe, of life, of humans, and the fossil record were supernatural events. Should it be the job of science to try to prove they were only natural events?

        What an eye is, what it does, and how we treat it for disease is real science. How we got an eye should be left to a philosophical worldview class concerning origins. It has nothing to do with real science. It is easy to see you don’t really understand how evolution is supposed to work, nor what constitutes real science.

        • gcomeau

          Complexity is not an indicator of design when there are known non-design mechanisms that produce massive complexity on a daily basis. Which there are. And yes there is a known mechanism that produces DNA. CHEMISTRY. Sheesh.

          • aedgeworth

            It took you two months to come up with that? Please share with us what those non-design mechanisms are, and give examples of the massive complexity. Chemistry is not a mechanism. If there were mechanisms that could produce complexity, that in itself would not disprove the existence of a designer, or that something as complex as the human eye wasn’t designed.

          • gcomeau

            I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to this discussion, seeing as it’s kind of like devoting time to debating whether the moon is made out of pudding. I happened to be cleaning out my inbox and saw a notification of a comment. (Which is also why I’m back btw)

            And yes… actually chemistry is a mechanism. It’s happening all around you, every day, turning various relatively disordered elements into much more complex molecules and strings of molecules…

            But no, chemistry doesn’t disprove that the eye was designed. The entire sum total of all available genetic and fossil evidence does that. Not that I would expect you to bother to even acquaint yourself with any of it.

          • aedgeworth

            Genetic similarities and structural similarities between life forms suggest either a common ancestor or a common designer, does it prove either one? Does the fossil evidence prove slow gradual formation, or rapid formation during a great flood? The debate is still ongoing. Does fossil formation require sudden, deep, burial? Are those stratified sedimentary layers mostly in straight lines, and for the most part laid down by water, or does erosion help provide the answer?

            The most common fossils in the world are clams. They are all petrified closed. Does that require sudden, deep, burial? When a clam dies the shell begins to open up very quickly. Fish and other predators begin to eat the clam and it is not unusual to have just the shell remaining in just one day. Does that prove they all could not have been formed through local catastrophes?

            Two different worldviews are examining the same scientific evidence. Does either side has sole ownership of the evidence? Using some imagination at times, most of the evidence can be explained by either worldview. Neither side was there. Does change on the micro level prove change on the macro level? One side says yes, the other side no.

            Do both worldviews observe micro changes in life forms? Do both recognize this type of change? Could this type of change be predicted by either worldview?

            Can adaptation be explained by random, chance, mutational change, by accident, for no purpose? Does survival of the fittest provide enough direction for that type of ability? Could it better be explained by intelligent design? The questions posed in this post will be answered according to your worldview, and I don’t expect either side to adopt a different worldview in response to them. Too much is at stake.

  • Aldo1887

    Is it only ironic to me, that the guy who tells us “you didn’t see it happen, you can’t prove it” is the CREATIONIST?? Isn’t the definition of Faith “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof” yet the Creationist’s whole argument is based on “you didn’t SEE it happen?”

    Dogma ftw….

    • gcomeau

      The most humorous and also most appropriate response to Ham’s idiocy on that point that I’ve seen was that Nye should have countered with an argument that actually the bible was written in the 19th century by a young Abraham Lincoln as a big joke, as were any historical references to it prior to that time. And if Nye attempted to deny this to inform him that he can’t say that wasn’t what happened because he wasn’t there.

      • kevins_76

        Good point. How does Ham know that the Bible wasn’t actually written by — gasp — scientists? :)

    • Demon Hunter

      The term “religion” must be defined clearly. While beliefs and worship practices, procedures, and conduct are involved in religion, any belief system that purports to be a total explanation of reality is more-or-less religion. Thus, insofar as it is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, held to with ardor and faith, Darwinian evolution can thus be considered religion.
      Faith is confidence or trust in a person , thing, deity, in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view.
      Logically you have to see the difference between historical science and observational science. Historical science is filled with assumptions on both sides. Claiming evolution is fact has to be one of the most ignorant beliefs of our time.
      Also, studies have shown that atheist are more dogmatic. You can check out social psychologist Jonathan Haidts work.

      • Aldo1887

        I had to go look up different definitions of “religion” to try and understand your point (thank you!) but I can see how you would come to that conclusion, however I would rebut that, in the common lexicon, the use of the word religion involves “superhuman agencies,” (the fundamental tenant of creationism)which is not a definition you can apply to evolution theorists.

        Your statement of “logically you can see the difference between historical science and observational science” perfectly exemplifies the polemics of your argument. You base the fallacy of Evolution on the fact that no-one was there to see it happen, yet you base Creationism on the fact that there is a God, who no-one is able to see?

        Prove it.

        When I go to look for the proof of Evolution, I can pull reams and reams of facts, studies, theories, physical samples in to prove Evolution. Not all of these are going to be right, not all are going to be valid, I completely agree with that, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, all of which supports the same theory.
        Yet when I go to look for “proof” of creationism, I am pointed to ONE book of theory, held by one religious sect, that was written by groups of mystics 3500-1500 years ago. Written as a method of crowd control I might add, to give shape and order to daily life, to be a powerful form of government, not to be the white washed Sunday-drives-to-see-a-sermon that religion is to modern suburbanites.

        Dogma is this statement “Claiming evolution is fact has to be one of the most ignorant beliefs of our time” because it is completely based on an “historical” assumption, that you maintain is unquestionably true, of the existence of a superhuman agency, offering nothing but “faith” as proof of the existence of this superhuman agency, then attempting to discredit Evolution’s proof,,, by claiming it wasn’t observed…

        This is möbius-strip logic at its finest (or worst.)

        Please, I would love to be proved wrong, with “observational” proof, use the burden of proof that you are attempting to discredit your foes with, on yourself, to prove your own theory, and I will gleefully retract anything I have written.

        (FWIW, I’m not an atheist, I do believe in a higher power, yet I think that trying to claim that higher power looks like a white male is utterly absurd.)

      • Guy Faux

        Typical, misleading and completely illogical. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but should be called out for making a statement based on fabricated definitions that lead to your improper conclusion. Definition of atheism is “disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods”. Dogma is a “principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true”.

        Atheism, by default, is not a belief, as it can’t be both a belief and a disbelief simultaneously, by definition. Calling an atheist dogmatic is wishful thinking on the part of the faithful in a rather childish attempt to equalize the playing field by putting faith and reason on equal footing. They certainly are not. Again, by definition, an atheist can not be dogmatic, as the atheist’s disbelief will gladly be turned into understanding if evidence for existence of god is presented.

        And so it goes, with this as with all other debates on religion, creationism, etc., they all boil down to reason vs faith. Argument from reason can be summed up as follows: I don’t know, but am willing to examine the arguments and make a conclusion based on these arguments and the evidence presented, including evidence for god. Most importantly, the evidence must be reproducible and not hearsay. Evolution and other scientific theories are based on learning from evidence, which had been discovered and proved to be observable and reproducible over time. Those who argue from faith, always misrepresent one’s understanding of the scientific principles of natural selection as a “belief in evolution”. This is intentionally misleading and should be called out as such.

        The argument from faith is as follows: I have a book or golden plates or some other relics, which differ from culture to culture, from civilization to civilization, but are always the same in essence and are always proclaimed to be the true and only, while excluding the similar books and relics as apocryphal. Holding up the relic, the believer proclaims divine faith based on this relic, and argues that, since a disbeliever can not prove existence of god not to be true, then that makes the believer right and successfully provers the argument for faith, creationism, etc.. In essence, the believer’s rather intellectually insulting argument asks the disbeliever to prove a negative, which can’t and shouldn’t be a requirement to defend one’s position.

  • alcubbies

    It’s fine if the people of the Bible Belt stop teaching real science. My son will have less competition when he graduates.

  • Guy Faux

    Bill Nye defended evolution in a debate against a certifiable moron who built a “museum” of creationism, where dinosaurs are exhibited as walking along side of humans. It is a sad, sad day when reason has to be put on a level playing field with ignorance, under a guise of a legitimate debate. For Nye to appear on the same stage, in a respectable manner, with an imbecile like Ham, regardless of the absurdity of Ham’s arguments, puts the ignoramus in a positive light and encourages the credulous to carry on, with fables in hand, to dumb down and dilute the intellectual integrity of this nation.

    Hold on firmly to the rim folks, the Ham disciples are desperately clawing at the flush handle. Imagine a day in the life of little Johnny, who starts off his morning with Creation Studies, followed by Alchemy Lab, followed by Astrological Science.

    To quote a smarter mammal than myself…”that which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof…