Bill Nye: Bible doesn't tell Earth's true history
© AP / Bill Nye
Bill Nye: Bible doesn't tell Earth's true history
Feb. 5, 2014, 8:34 AM EST
By DYLAN LOVAN , Associated Press
PETERSBURG, Ky. (AP) — True to his passionate and animated TV persona, "Science Guy" Bill Nye tapped on the podium, threw up his hands and noted that science shows the Earth is "billions and billions" of years old in a debate at a Kentucky museum known for teaching that the planet's age is only 6,000.
Nye was debating Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and promoting science in the snappy way that made him a pop culture staple as host of "Bill Nye The Science Guy" in the 1990s.
The event was meant to explore the age old question, "How did we get here?" from the perspectives of faith and science.
Ham, an Australian native who has built a thriving ministry in Kentucky, said he trusts the story of creation presented by the Bible.
"The Bible is the word of God," Ham said. "I admit that's where I start from."
Nye delivered a passionate speech on science and challenged the museum's teachings on the age of the earth and the Bible's flood story. Like most scientists, Nye believes there is no credible evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old.
"If we accept Mr. Ham's point of view ... that the Bible serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you, I want you to consider what that means," Nye said. "It means that Mr. Ham's word is to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find in your backyard in Kentucky."
The event drew dozens of national media outlets and about 800 tickets sold out in minutes. Ham said ahead of the debate that the Creation Museum was having a peak day on its social media sites.
"I think it shows you that the majority of people out there, they're interested in this topic, they want to know about this, they don't want debate shut down," Ham said before the debate.
At times, the debate had the feel of a university lecture, with slides and long-form presentations.
Responding to an audience question about where atoms and matter come from, Nye said scientists are continuing to find out.
Ham said he already knows the answer.
"Bill, I want to tell you, there is a book that tells where atoms come from, and its starts out, 'In the beginning ...,'" Ham said.
Nye said there are plenty of religious people around the world who don't question evolution science.
"I just want to remind us all there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion," said Nye, who wore his trademark bow tie. "But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old."
The debate drew a few Nye disciples in the audience, including Aaron Swomley, who wore a red bowtie and white lab coat. Swomley said he was impressed by Ham's presentation and the debate's respectful tone.
"I think they did a good job outlining their own arguments without getting too heated, as these debates tend to get," he said.
Some scientists had been critical of Nye for agreeing to debate the head of a Christian ministry that is dismissive of evolution.
Jerry Coyne, an evolution professor at the University of Chicago, wrote on his blog that "Nye's appearance will be giving money to organizations who try to subvert the mission Nye has had all his life: science education, particularly of kids." Coyne pointed out that the Creation Museum will be selling DVDs of the event.
The debate was hatched after Nye appeared in an online video in 2012 that urged parents not to pass their religious-based doubts about evolution on to their children. Ham rebutted Nye's statements with his own online video and the two later agreed to share a stage.
___
The first thing I would point out is the impossibility of starting with infants in ignorance. Infants are incapable of providing for their own needs, and even most children are until they reach at least eight or more. Even if you substitute automatons in place of human parents, those automatons are going to have to be programmed to provide care based on rules (values), biasing the outcome! Discipline is based on values and can not be avoided in the raising of children! There is no way to start from a blank slate as you propose!
The other problem is that you are assuming either A) that people are logical/rational by nature and that somehow that would result in irrational beliefs/behavior or B) that you assume people are illogical/irrational, in which case you couldn't really expect them to suddenly grow rationality. In either case, neither assumption supports your conclusion!
I don't really find this a "damning" experiment at all (ironic that you would use a religious word) except in its very proposition! Further, it seems to be based on the false premise that all religion is irrational in the first place. To make that leap is to claim that all value systems are irrational (for that is what a religion is) - which is unfounded and frankly a prejudiced/bigoted view.
Further, the sheer existence of difference in the plethora of existing value systems also means that not all value systems will have the same benefits or costs - to lump them all together and declare them either irrational or without merit (your thinly veiled implication) is to ignore this fundamental reality.
A better thought experiment is this: what knowledge is the most important? That to me is a question that drives many others and for which one can reasonably entertain suggestions.
More and more scripture is proving to be accurate when compared with scientific discoveries. Recent findings in quantum physics related to the slowing of the speed of light and the expansion of the universe are just a few of the discoveries that the Bible reinforces, not contradicts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3A...
Can I borrow the keys to the time machine? I want to see what my stock holdings will be doing in a few weeks... ;-)
Seriously, though, camels have been used as animals of burden for thousands of years, so well within the timeframe of the birth of JC.
I am not being flippant, either. One can not ask to fulfill a whim. One must be serious about accepting any answer received for exactly what it is, with all the consequences thereof.
Such a test is not for the faint of heart or for those who are merely curious, which is why such proof is a one-way street. There is no going back once you know. But that path is also 100% voluntary and 100% personal. I can neither force you down the path nor observe your answer. Just as you would not speak with your children the same way because they are distinct individuals with different personalities, learning styles, etc, so too God personalizes His communications with His children as well. I could tell you a range of things to look for, but could in no way predict which of them were employed.
Anyway, I'll leave you with that and my thanks for an immensely enjoyable conversation from someone using their reasoning faculties to the fullest. My compliments, and my best wishes to you.
All that aside, I would posit for consideration this: what if there were a way to know for sure the veracity of any "religious" claim - and have that veracity originate from a non-Biblical source? Is this plausible?
For your consideration: the Bible is a record of what witnesses claimed to have happened up to and ending about 80 years AD. For someone living 2000 years later, it is not unreasonable to ask for something a little more modern. So what if there were modern witnesses (Biblical lingo calls them prophets) who testify now of the same things? What if on top of that, you didn't even have to take _their_ word for it, but you could go straight to the source? If you could ask God if He exists, would you do it?
No need to answer, just a question for thought. Cheers!
That complete set of characteristics is best seen in those who do not have that kind of belief.
There is a phrase "one in the many." Meaning the identification of one unifying principle from the many seemingly unconnected things. Newton, for example, needed the concept mass to generalize his principle of gravity, which is the unifying principle governing the force between to bodies. I believe we are missing some essential conceptual understandings to unify QM and relativity. It doesn't help that QM contains contradictions when relativity does not.
What remains to be resolved is referred to as Grand Unified Theory, of which string theory is a part and quantum mechanics is a part. There are at least three major versions of string theory that are all incompatible in some form or another, but which all offer explanations of certain observed phenomena. Grand Unified Theory is the attempt to resolve the differences between interactions at the sub-atomic level and interactions at the astronomical level - or to put it another way, to resolve the force differences between electrical charge and gravity. The Higgs Boson was to be a key part because until one could identify the transmission unit and method for gravity, no attempt at unification was possible using the existing theories.
The first trick to any real debate is to always focus on the assumptions and get those nailed down first. Once both agree on the facts and frame of reference, truth is usually separated from error easily. The only question then becomes whether or not someone is willing to accept it. That can be a really tough thing for people to do - and their religious or political affiliation matter not.
Load more comments...