Bill Nye Debates Creation Museum’s Ken Ham [Video]


Bill Nye the Science Guy agreed to partake in a debate Tuesday night with Ken Ham, a creation apologist, Christian author, and Creation Museum founder…at the actual Creation Museum.

The debate lasted nearly 3 hours and while I haven’t watched it all yet, both men seemed articulate, passionate, and respectful.

Editor’s note: Jump ahead to 13m:15s to get to the start of the debate right away.

[Answers in Genesis / Source: YouTube]

9 Responses to Bill Nye Debates Creation Museum’s Ken Ham [Video]

  1. “Those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God”. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man?. So, the believing in the creator tries to answer such questions without discarding evolution.

  2. I would have liked to seen a debate/explanation of how mutation does not create new function. By a generalized scientific definition of mutation is that mutation is creation of a gene that did not previously exist in an organism. In Ken Ham’s last few min. of debate he used a reference of mutation…how can he reference mutation without believing that mutation is a evolutionary product of creating a trait that did not previously exist.

  3. In the immortal words of Thomas Dolby, ‘Science!’ It was fun to watch, I think Mr Nye was victorious in defending mainstream science and the modern scientific method. Well done sir.

  4. Some fossilized questions for a healhtier debate, for instance: is there evolution if there is no time? How will evolutionary biology meet new physical paradigms about time, space and so on? Will new conceptual changes deny evolution? Or on the contrary, will it become a more extraordinary process, full of astonishing implications? If so, will past human beings and the rest of living beings become something different as science progresses? After all, is life something fix-finite-defined? That is, can one understand it by means of using a flesh brain and its limited words, axioms and dogmas? Does the whole of life fit inside a bone box? Indeed, will science add indefinitely without understanding completely, is there an infinite pool of knowledge and ignorance waiting for us? Otherwise, will religions use the word God forever and ever, as if it were a death thing, a repetitive thing that is part of human discussions? And, in order to speak about God, are they using his limited brain or do they use unknown instruments? Along these lines, there is a different book, a preview in Just another suggestion in order to freethink for a while

  5. I’m a believer of Christ and by extension agree with Ken Ham on every spiritual matter but, on his interpretations of the Genesis account of creation, which was written in the form of Hebraic Poetry (which funny he mentioned that Psalms should be interpreted as poetry) I have to disagree. Without getting into a thesis long discussion on Theology and Science, I would say that the only verses meant to be seen in a physical manner are Genesis 1:1 and 2; even then the verses still have major spiritual significance. I would recommend anyone look up “The Gap theory.” Un-related to the Gap Theory, the Bible says God is Spirit and therefore the intended content of the Bible is spiritual in nature, not physical. It is very tempting for me to address every point mentioned in the debate as an alternate view of Creationists, but there simply isn’t enough time. I am always interested in a good discussion though, just probably not through the comments section.

  6. I find it really frustrating that the so called “biblical creationists” really have no idea what the bible creation account says. No where in Genesis does it state the world in only 6000 years old, neither does the Hebrew word “yom” (Translated Day) in Genesis mean 24 hours. (there are many examples of this word used for various time lengths) Yom is used to be 12 hours, 24 hours, one generation or some time period (Much like we would say “In my fathers day” – Clearly our father didn’t only live for 24 hours!) The opening line in Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning” – At some point in the past – the first thing that happened – the beginning. These kind of debates are so weighted – find a good scientist (Atheist) and find a bad Creationist and point and say – “See creation is so wrong” I’m not a theologian, but I can run rings round Ken Hams supposed logic. Creation is very viable – debates like this however are way too biased to be taken as a serious look in to creation Vs evolution.

  7. This man does no credit for science OR the Bible by just “standing firm” without unbiased logic. Credit for science topics but all together I don’t blame Bill Nye for his view point because look at what he was up against. Ken Ham will only infuriate people when putting up walls for science. I thank Bill Nye for at least being a logical but pointed individual, didn’t agree with him at times but I respect him. Extremely Knowledgable.