Nye vs. Ham

This is a good article arguing against scientists debating creationists: Should Scientists Debate Creationists?

The perpetually-bowtied science educator Bill Nye “The Science Guy” is slated to debate creationist Ken Ham, the founder of Kentucky’s Creation Museum, on Feb. 4.

“Debate is a sport, not the way we decide scientifically how the world works.”

This is not an issue of censorship. Anyone is free to hold whatever beliefs or opinions they like, no matter how unscientific or false. But there is no obligation to portray both sides as having equally strong or valid scientific arguments, when by any measure they do not.

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Nye vs. Ham

  1. Chris says:

    Tickets sold out in two minutes.

  2. cope says:

    Bill Nye, whom I greatly respect and admire, is making a mistake. For one, it seems to be a money making event for this creationist museum. For another, it posits that creationism and evolution are two diametrically opposed explanations for the natural state of the world when in fact, they are not. Evolution is supported by empirical scientific evidence while creationism is not. Creationism is supported only by anecdotal stories from ancient texts.

    Creationism has no place in any consideration of how how we have come to be how we are because it offers not one iota of evidence in defense of its argument.

    I am guessing that this is an effort to raise funds to save the Ark Encounter theme park that is about to go south despite the sale of junk bonds to support it and the overly generous tax benefits given by the state of Kentucky.

    As H. L. Mencken stated: “No one in this world, so far as I know – and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me – has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” Mr. Ham seems determined to tap into this potential of revenue.

    I am sorry to see Bill Nye bring any kind of attention (or profit) to Ken Ham’s interactive, immersive monument to ignorance, certain as I am, that not a single person will be swayed one way or the other by this event.

  3. Jonathan Smith says:

    Cope,

    I agree 100%. I think it was Richard Dawkins when asked to debate a creationist said somethng like, “That would look great on his CV, not so good on mine.”

  4. Chris says:

    Cope,

    800 tickets at 25 bucks each is definitely not a money making event. But I would agree, Nye could be making a big mistake. It’s doubtful he will have anything special to say other than the same old propaganda he was indoctrinated with. Pond scum to people evolutionist seem to get smoked pretty bad in these debates when they’re ask to produce solid evidence beyond blind faith.

    After getting bit a few times Atheist Richard Dawkins has learned to play it safe and stay away from debates, spewing personal ridicule and flat earth accusations from a distance at his opponents.

    It looks like it may be to late for Nye to chicken out, so it should be fun.

  5. Pierce R. Butler says:

    We already have a clue about how honestly Ham will handle this project:

    A half-dozen of us were already on the ticket site the moment they went on sale. Some of these guys posted to my facebook about what was happening at that moment. They all tried to add tickets to the cart but got an error message as the site crashed. It quickly came back online announcing that all 900 seats had sold out instantaneously simultaneously, and somehow none of the interested atheist groups got even one of those tickets…

    No wonder the blogger quoted above calls The Science Guy “Bill Naive”.

  6. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    Here you are once again lying for your Bejesus without a twinge of conscience. Dawkins has only debated creationists once, when he and John Maynard Smith participated in an Oxford Union debate against A E Wilder Smith and Edgar Andrews thoroughly trouncing them. Guess you forgot the debates between Miller and Pennock vs Dembski and Behe, where Dembski never managed to answer one question? Watch Aron Ra demolish Ray Comfort?
    You and the rest of your ilk cannot produce a single shred of scientific evidence to support your position, if you could you would have presented on the multiple occasions you have been asked. As Christopher Hitchens has so rightly said “That which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.

  7. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,
    I haven’t heard from you lately, I had thought you may have had a broom crash. Hope you’re OK.

    Christopher Hichens had a good point, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence. Sounds like he was talking about evolution as the god of the gaps.

    “Dawkins has only debated creationists once”
    I had no idea he had dropped out that quick. I suppose he recognized early on his arguments from ignorance could taint his self righteous public character.

  8. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    Your snarky jibe regarding my broomstick would seem at the outset, to be marginally amusing. However, knowing your preponderance for biblical literacy, it makes me somewhat uneasy. Implying, Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, could be construed as a threat.
    As usual (yawn) you completely ignore the chance to provide any proof for your position. Young earth creationists like you are losing the battle on all fronts. It’s a shame you can’t accomplish something worthwhile for yourself beyond Lying for Jesus.

  9. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    You don’t have to worry about me, I’m harmless. However Revelation 21:8 should be a real cause for concern.

    I don’t really believe you’re looking for evidence which might contradict your belief. The purely materialistic cause for origins is a secular humanistic necessity. As Dawkins has put it, it was “Darwin [who] made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

    To me, the large array of imaginative possibilities proposed by evolutionist fails to physically demonstrate the claim life arose from the so called simple cells it claims. The directional DNA information contained within cells far exceeds the function of natural selection and mutation. Changing existing information in not the same as creating it.

    I would think that the ongoing humanistic battle to suppress contradicting discover and ridicule those who have skeptical questions about evolutions bold claims must be continue for the belief to survive.

    If Darwin were alive today I wonder if he would consider his theory valid.

  10. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Chris – consider how the change of one letter in a certain sentence gives it the opposite meaning:

    Changing existing information is now the same as creating it.

    (Okay, I changed two letters, but one change served only to fix a typo and make either version intelligible.)

    New sentence, different content – how can you claim no “information” has been created?

    (More serious dissections of your lame claim point out that creationists do not have a rigorous definition of “information” – see some of the essays of Shallit and Elsberry at The Panda’s Thumb for a fuller explication.)

    Nor, for that matter, does any evolutionary theory assert that “life arose from the so called simple cells”. If you have a cell, you have a living entity – either a unicellular organism or part of a multicellular organism.

    What “contradicting discover” do you think has been suppressed by humanists?

    And, tangentially, did you happen to learn what you think is science from Accelerated Christian Education materials?

  11. Chris says:

    Pierce,
    No, my opinions haven’t come from ACE. But I do find the description of origins in the Bible far far more plausible than the assumptions of evolutionist.

    You say, “Creationism has no place in any consideration of how we have come to be how we are because it offers not one iota of evidence in defense of its argument.” Your argument here is a sham. The creation model fits exactly with what is seen in nature; humans have common ancestry with humans, a testable, observable fact. And nowhere has it been demonstrated that established biological families have been or can be integrated with others by intention or chance. Conjecture is the foundation for pond scum to pepple evolution, not science.

    Your blind faith has inadvertently provided an example of my point. With imagination being the driving force of molecule to man evolution, perhaps you’ll have no problem with an example.

    Your alteration of “Changing existing information is not the same as creating it.”‘ to “Changing existing information is ‘now’ the same as creating it.” not only has a different meaning but it carries differnt building blocks. If the letters in my sentence were all that existed and those combinations of letters were the only method of communication or transmitting instructional information for action, you have just demonstrated the impossible or the supernatural. The letter ‘w’ is simply does not exist withing the sentence. The ‘w’ must come from an outside source. It took intelegence to add a letter and change a word which altered the information. Likewise information is not the letters or material that carry it. From the information available natural selection might have the ability to deliver up a phrase like, pro intell and mutation might pop up with aomlgta’ but neither process can add new information. Combinations of letters won’t produce ‘w’ ( ab=ba not w ) Different letter combinations could be utilized to produce variation, such as’ it is the same as cheating, information changes are not creation, creation information, the same formation of change, etc. While there may be similarity in structure and term, the combination of letters used as building blocks in this sentence, ‘Chris can eat crow,’ is not a possibility.

    “There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.” Werner Gitt

    You can have a red rose, a white one, or yellow. You can have a black cat, but you can’t have a true black rose. The genetic information isn’t present to produce a black rose or a red cat. . Ya got to fake it.

    “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” Carl Sagan

  12. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,

    No one gives a rats ass what you or other brain dead creationist (Werner Gitt) think. You start your inept comments with phrases like “I would think /I don’t really believe /To me, ? nothing scientific, just your personal unlettered opinion. I have called your rantings out many times and you have failed to give me any scientific answers So one more time.

    1) Who is the designer? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    2) What did that designer do? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    3) How did the designer do it? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    4) When did the designer do it? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

    Yes and while you answering these questions,you wrote ““There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information”
    So define infomatiion for me???

  13. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Chris – You say, “Creationism has no place …

    Pls try to pay attention: cope said that, not me.

    Tell us just why you expect to be taken seriously here, will ya?

    As for your goalpost-shifting about “information” – just imagine how much fun I could have playing anagrams with your ramblings… [insert evil-grin emoticon here]

    And why should I, or anyone, let ourselves be fenced in by the limits of Werner Gitt’s knowledge?

  14. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    It is a little difficult to sort out reasonable questions amongst all the psychobabble you gas off. But you know, we haven’t heard anything really scientific or special from you. Correction, I do suppose the implication you have placed a value on an a rats ass could be special. Congratulations!

    These questions you’ve got are the same type of questions i’ve been asking you.

    1) Show there is no designer. How can we scientifically test your answer.

    2) Show nothing was done by a designer. How can we scientifically test your answer?

    3) Show how a designer couldn’t design. How can we scientifically test your answer?

    4) Show there was no designer at any time. How can we scientifically test your answer?

    5) Show anything which was designed by a designer? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    I would suggest you look up information for yourself, you don’t seem to have much.

  15. Chris says:

    Pierce,

    I wouldn’t think you would be fenced in by anyone’s knowledge. Your belief isn’t about knowledge, it’s about faith.

  16. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    Really, I mean really, is that the best you can come up with? Are you really that poorly educated or are you just being totally disingenuous? Please tell me/us, that you don’t see the fatal flaw in your questions to me? You present a logical fallacy that a 7th grader could point out and then sit back with a stupid grin on your face thinking you have just trumped that nasty atheist and how Jesus would be so proud of you. Arguing from ignorance and trying to shift the burden of proof is a common ploy by your ilk, trying to place your preconceived religious notions above rational scientific analysis.

    NO, I cannot scientifically disprove any of your questions, any more than I cannot disprove pink unicorns, fairies, or any other supernatural entities; however that does not logically mean they exist by default. So, I’ve answered your questions, now go ahead an answer mine and while you doing that tell me how we can scientifically show that the designer was the god of the bible.
    In the context of evolution my understanding of information would be one of these.

    Increased genetic variety in a population
    Increased genetic material
    Novel genetic material
    Novel genetically-regulated abilities

    Scientists have shown in multiple peer reviewed studies that in any of these definitions, information can and does increase. So now go ahead and give us your understanding and do us a favor, don’t try to conflate randomness of information with entropy and then by metaphor attempt to use the second law of thermodynamics to prove that informational randomness is one way. That stupidity has already been totally debunked by thermodynamicists years ago.

  17. ivorygirl says:

    Chris,

    BTW before you start spouting about my lack of scientific evidence to back up my opinions here are a few to cover my understanding of information.

    * increased genetic variety in a population ? We know that by that definition, information can increase:
    Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
    Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.

    * increased genetic material? We know that by that definition, information can increase:
    Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
    Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/1
    Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
    Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
    Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.

    * novel genetic material? We know that by that definition, information can increase:
    Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
    Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.

    * novel genetically-regulated abilities? We know that by that definition, information can increase:
    Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.

  18. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    The list of stuff you quote-‘mined from a chat site I doubt is really your opinion. But let’s pretend you have safely landed on the planet.

    “increased genetic variety in a population? We know that by that definition, information can increase:” There are several words here that indicate what is being defined.

    va·ri·e·ty [vuh-rahy-i-tee] Show IPA
    noun, plural va·ri·e·ties.

    1. the state of being varied or diversified: to give variety to a diet.
    2. difference; discrepancy.
    3. a number of different types of things, especially ones in the same general category: a large variety of fruits.
    4. a kind or sort.
    5. a different form, condition, or phase of something: varieties of pastry; a variety of economic reforms.

    Normally a variety might be a white roach and a brown roach. Not a brown roach and a watermelon.

    “We know that by that definition, information can increase”. Information can be considered an increase within a variety. Compatible genetic information already exists within the genome to create variation.

    Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria
    http://www.pnas.org/content/96/7/3807.full
    “Certain pivotal mutations were shared by all descendants in a population, and these are candidates for beneficial mutations, which are rare and difficult to find. More generally, these data show that the genome is highly dynamic even over a time scale that is, from an evolutionary perspective, very brief.” The experiment began with E. coli and ended with E. coli, just variation. Now, let’s say you started with E. coli and ended with a fishing worm, or a hammer head shark, that is what you believe. Of course this type of evolution has never been witnessed or duplicated with the exception of artist renderings.

  19. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,

    You spewed, “The experiment began with E. coli and ended with E. coli, just variation. Now, let’s say you started with E. coli and ended with a fishing worm, or a hammer head shark, that is what you believe. Of course this type of evolution has never been witnessed or duplicated with the exception of artist renderings”.
    You go from dumb to dumber, that’s if you think that’s how evolution works, and I’m surprised you didn’t throw in the Crockoduck example. You just can’t get your mind around the fact that populations are shown to change genetically over time. Lineages (kinds in your vernacular) also split, from the first Ur-organisms with little or no horizontal movement of genes in eukaryotes, but they did gain information. That splitting of lineages is what creates common ancestry, so that any pair of species on Earth had a common ancestor at some time in the past. Organisms arose through the process of natural selection, although random processes like genetic drift can cause evolution.
    Notice to all, Chris once again did the creationist two-step and failed to answer any of my questions after I honestly answered his. The reason? He can’t and he knows it.

  20. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    I’ll bet you could be a suicide bomber without the dynamite. I hope you don’t smoke, If all that methane was to ignite the sewage would be devastating.

    Ur-organisms = “Ur-organism” is the term LOOSELY given to the HYPOTHETICAL “first life” from which all other life PRESUMABLY evolved. So is this the foundation for soup to superman evolution, a hypothetical presumption?

    “Ur-organisms with little or no horizontal movement of genes in eukaryotes, but they did gain information.” It is KNOWN that Ur-organism gained information when its not KNOWN that they or it has ever even existed.

    “That splitting of lineages is what creates common ancestry, so that any pair of species on Earth had a common ancestor at some time in the past.” There was no pair, no lineage for a single common ancestor to have. So the single common ancestor doctrine is a fallacy.

    “Organisms arose through the process of natural selection, although random processes like genetic drift can cause evolution.” Natural selection removed some of the genetic variation which had magically appeared in the first HYPOTHETICAL Ur-organism and then genetic drift changed the allele frequency in a non-existant HYPOTHETICAL population to produce variation. And we are on our way! This is solid science?

    I can’t be insulted with this type of stupidity. You’ve got to be totally brainwashed to suck this stuff up.

    By the way, what kind of honest answer did I miss?

  21. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,

    You spewed “I can’t be insulted with this type of stupidity” Well that’s the truth,reading the bible every day must make you imune to it.

    I guess you missed my sentence “NO, I cannot scientifically disprove any of your questions” But I know as a godbot you have a problem with being honest.

    So answer the questions or have the balls to say you can’t

    1) Who is the designer? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    2) What did that designer do? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    3) How did the designer do it? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    4) When did the designer do it? How can we scientifically test your answer?

    5) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

  22. Jonathan Smith says:

    Ok Chris and Ivorygirl your comments have slipped into name calling and repetition. I don’t think this is worth continuing,please give it up and wait for the next opportunity . Thanks.

  23. Ivorygirl says:

    Ok point taken

  24. Chris says:

    Jonathan, My last comment. Thanks

    Ivorygirl,

    “You spewed “I can’t be insulted with this type of stupidity” Well that’s the truth,reading the bible every day must make you imune to it.” This could be the closest thing to accurate you’ve ever said. I’m not sure immune would be correct, but aware might be.

    1) Who is the designer? How can we scientifically test your answer?
    Great question, and you already know the answer. You just don’t like it. And intern claim there is no design and every thing which exist is the result of random processes from mindless natural forces. Such a position can only be supported by belief and denial or ignorance, not observaation.

    An architect seldom builds what he draws or designs and usually hands those plans over to tradesmen who are capable of building his ideas, which may or may not be the case here. To make a satisfactory determination of the question I would think there are a large number of abilities to fill the position, here are a few.

    It’s evident that every living thing, plant and animal is dependent on a specialized enviroment for it’s survival. And the amount of time a so called simple cell organism could exist with no back up, no purpose, no sustenance, no knowledge of itself would be incredibly insignificant, if at all. Also considering the interwoven dependency of even a small fraction of the life forms that presently exist indicate the time from the appearance of one organism to another likewise must have been relatively quick. Certainly not millions of years or even hundreds, even one year would would eliminate any form of life as we know it. Days between some species would be a stretch. It would take far more than a extremely sophisticated scope of work to produce the necessities, for even one organism.

    The calculator was invented by Blaise Pascal in 1639. The human brain is said to be equal to one million advanced calculators working at the same time with purpose. To say the least, this is not the design of spontaneous generation, a moon god or change over time.

    With the recent discovery of DNA the competition for a designer should completely eliminate anything which might resemble a random process. Even Dawkins admits:“[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.” Notice Dawkins doesn’t indicate random letters and spaces, but identifies information.

    With a single human sperm having 37.5MB of DNA instructional information in it, it’s unfathomable to consider the amount of information transmited through reproduction at any given moment in time.

    The similarities in design could indicate a single designer or a organization of architects utilizing the same building components. A car, airplane, radio and a popcorn popper all have some similarly in designed components. And there is no question that any of them could have independently evolved from the other, nor would it be considered that there existence would be the work or raccoons. Just like Paley’s watch, with no evidence of its origin, the designer is known.

    There is an indication that life itself is of this world. Nothing science has discovered or fabricated has brought life to any organism the didn’t already have it. The fiscal building material can be identified but life appears to be far more than dirt. To fill only some of the necessities that each organism would require demands intelligence far beyond our comprehension.

    Whether the designer is the builder of what is might be a question. Science can only ponder and speculate how things came to be. But regardless honestly applying observational science, and not religion there is only one person who fits this ticket of designer and builder which of course is the God or the bible.
    Observational science is not testable. But many of the claims in the bible are. Heres one. Evidence the earth formed quickly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRGp-VcBJI

Comments are closed.