The Looking Spoon:
"So an apparently epic creation/evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham took place recently.
I haven't seen it yet, but it's definitely on my to do list.
As a Christian who believes in God I don't reject evolution outright, but I totally reject the evolutionists dismissal of the creation/intelligent design crowd." I took the time this morning to watch all two hours and forty-five minutes of this alleged "debate".
Ham vs. Nye Debate on YouTube
First of all, what everybody needs to understand is that such "debate" only exists at all because virtually nobody understands the definitions/meanings of its most important terms.
As a result, people like Ham & Nye can talk for hours right past each other, sometimes using the same words, but meaning different things by them, and often distorting their real meanings.
Second, for a debate allegedly over "Creationism versus Evolution", there was virtually no discussion of actual evolution, and no serious defense of it by Nye.
Ham made numerous unanswered claims against evolution, while Nye wandered off into other subjects.
Third, it was abundantly obvious that Ham clearly understood both his audience and his subject, while Nye grasped neither.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, the subtexts of the debate were more important than the subject matter itself.
In the case of Ham that was: Christian fundamentalists can and should be scientists -- simply remember the distinction between "observational science" and "historical science".
In the case of Nye it was: science is more interesting than anything you might read in some ancient text.
Now, to begin resolving the problem of "Creationism versus Evolution", you must first understand that science itself, literally, can't debate "creationism".
It's a point that Ham tried his best to deny, but the fact is, by definition, science can't deal with anything supernatural.
Since at least the Renaissance in western civilization, the word "science" has been short for "natural-science" which means: natural explanations for natural processes, period.
As soon as you bring anything supernatural into a discussion, then it's no longer "science".
That's one reason why people like Nye can't answer the question: where did the "Big Bang" come from?
As soon as you say, "God made it", then you've left science and entered theology.
Ham made clear that he was there to defend his religious beliefs, and that no scientific evidence would ever change his mind about that.
Nye made clear that no biblical text would ever influence his scientific conclusions.
So, bottom line: the debate question was,
"Is Creationism a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era."
The answer is simple and obvious: it is certainly
"viable" for Creationists like Ham, but for scientists like Nye, absolutely not.
*Thanks to Eugenie Scott.
Creationist Argument #1:
"I believe the Big Bang Theory.
God said it and BANG it happened!" Of course, that's true, but it has nothing to do with science.
Any discussion of God is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Creationist Argument #2: "Why do evolutionists /secularists /humanists /non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a Creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?"
Of course, they don't.
But science, by definition, is non-religious so any scientist is entitled to believe whatever religion they wish.
And there is an obvious difference between God and "aliens", one being certainly supernatural the others presumably natural.
If you are in any way confused about which is which, I'm 100% certain your minister can straighten you out on that.
Creationist Argument #3: "Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith"?
The "big bang" is not a "belief" or "faith", rather, it's accepted as a confirmed scientific theory.
You may remember, years ago there was an alternative, competing theory, Fred Hoyle's "steady-state" hypothesis, which posited a constant, essentially eternal Universe with no beginning or end.
Hoyle's ideas are now generally rejected because of overwhelming, convergent evidence for a "big bang" and finite age of the Universe.
But there is some notion of "steady state" re-emerging in various hypotheses regarding a "multi-verse" -- all of which is today pure speculation, not "belief" or "faith".
Creationist Argument #4: "Relating to the big bang theory... Where did the exploding star come from?"
It was most certainly not an "exploding star".
It may have been some kind of super-duper-massive "black hole", but not a star.
The scientific answer to this question is: we have no evidence, and so we don't know.
Today scientific speculations begin with "string theory" and extend out to "multi-verses", but none of it is seriously confirmed and all is beyond ordinary human comprehension.
Anyone, whether scientific or not, who is half-way religious knows the answer is: God created the "Big Bang", as recorded in Genesis when He said, "let there be light".
Creationist Argument #5: "Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable nor repeatable -- why object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?"
First of all: there is no objection -- constitutional, legal or ethical -- to teaching "creationism" or "intelligent design" in your own Sunday School or home-school.
Those are obvious places where your personal religion can and should be taught to your children.
But Public Schools are not permitted to teach anybody's personal religions, and certainly not to pretend those religious beliefs have something to do with "science".
Second, your "definition" of science is false.
"Natural-science" by definition deals with observable physical evidence, developing confirmable hypotheses & theories.
Among the methods for confirming hypotheses are the making and validating of predictions about what will be found.
On the subject of evolution, confirmed observations (aka "facts") include 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Basic Evolution itself is a confirmed theory -- confirmed by its ability to make valid predictions.
Various scientific ideas about the origins of life and the Universe itself fall into the category of "unconfirmed hypotheses".
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #1: "How can you ignore evolution as a theory if there are entire disciplines dedicated to it?"
The only people ignoring evolution as a scientific theory are people who oppose natural-science for their own religious reasons.
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #2: "What's with all the raping and pillaging, God?"
What this might have to do with "evolution" pro or con, is not obvious.
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #3: "If my great great grandpa rode bareback on a T-Rex... why can't I?"
Presumed point being: if dinosaurs were allegedly around at the time of Noah's Ark 4,000 years ago, how did they disappear without leaving a single recent trace?
Even the old Mammoth-Elephants which did survive that long left remains frozen in ice...
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #4: "How did Noah's Ark stay afloat even with termites on the ark?"
Presumed point being: while Creationists go to great lengths to "disprove" scientific evidence for evolution, they offer no "proof" of their own for such fanciful notions as a very large wooden ark carrying two of every "kind" creature on earth.
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #5: "I require my textbooks to be newer than 4,000 years old."
Presumed point being: by no possible definition is the Bible a textbook of natural-science.