1966 Shares

Did you watch the Creationism Vs. Evolution debate?

Did you watch the Creationism Vs. Evolution debate? Topic: methodology section
June 26, 2019 / By Beavis
Question: The debate was between Bill Nye (pro-evolution) and Ken Ham (pro-creationism). It was posted on Youtube and its already garnered over 1.7 million viewers. I've watched an hour of it so far, but I'll definitely watch it to the end. Who do you think won? Has it changed your opinion, even slightly? Jason That is why I asked on this forum. I wanted to read some comments but the up-loader disabled the comments section, unfortunately.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Did you watch the Creationism Vs. Evolution debate?

Zoey Zoey | 6 days ago
I made myself watch every minute of it, cringe-worthy thought I tend to find such debates. I guess because Bill Nye can make you look stupid without ever saying a cross word, and how he seems to know better than to play by his opponents' rules, made it bearable. Ken Ham made a number of blunders, which Bill Nye did not completely address, being that he was more interested in bringing his own point across to the audience. The biggest one lay in the fact that he emphatically, and repeatedly claimed that there was a such thing as "historical science" contrasted by "observational science". He believes that both are valid scientific methodologies, but that you can't know anything about the past using historical science, because dating methods and such are as he put it, unreliable, and also because "we weren't there". Problem with his argument, and I kinda wish Bill had nailed him on it, is that any scientific methodology that doesn't produce reasonable and reliable results, ISN'T SCIENCE. He therefore is saying that people doing the bulk of what is called scientists, are fraudulently dicking their way around laboratories, soaking up tax dollars and wasting time. It also stands to reason that any science dedicated to learning about the past, is based on observations made in the present. Eye-witness accounts of initial events make up a very small amount of science. His presentation includes the argument that creationists CAN be scientists, despite the fact that no one claims they cannot. To this end, he trots out scientists who are creationists, such as the inventor of the MRI. On one hand, the MRI guy isn't any more qualified to talk about evolution than I am. The one guy who works in biology, whose credentials I don't doubt, seemed, despite his training, to have a faulty understanding of what evolution even is. His statement about the evolutionary validation of the field he works in included the "no new information" argument, which you may know, is a nonsense phrase trotted out by people that don't understand how evolution works, or really, what information even is. Bill Nye explains that the ability to make predictions is a hallmark of a sound scientific notion or theory. He repeats this about 6 or 7 times, and challenges Ken Ham to produce one prediction that Creationism has made. Because of this, Ken Ham, who probably never heard or listened when told that predictions are part of good science, eventually gives a throwaway line "Creationism can make predictions", not only does he not seem to know what that means, but he never explains it. Finally, Ham states that the joy and wonder of discovery is as much his as it is a true scientist's. He needles Bill at every rebuttal saying (in response to Bill saying we don't know something) "There's a book that tells us etc." How can you enjoy discovery if you believe your book already tells you everything you need to know? Furthermore, your "Historical Science, We Can't Know" mantra tells us that you wouldn't mind if we simply stopped doing science altogether. That's not the mindset of a discoverer. I hope I gave you a decent (if long-winded analysis of the debate). I really enjoyed it, despite having to listen to the drivel just barely crouched in sciency-sounding language from Ken I-look-like-I-eat-teddybear-p#ssy Ham. EDIT: It occurs to me that this Historical Science thing actually invalidates ALL of science, even the observational science he champions. Why? Because even though some eye-witness made a real-time observation, you weren't there, and you cannot know for certain that they actually did make said observation. Sorry, just had to throw that in there.
👍 240 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? Did you watch the Creationism Vs. Evolution debate? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: methodology section


Zoey Originally Answered: Creationism vs. evolution?
Creationism is not science. Evolution is science. The following is not a rant - it is a statement of facts delivered in a calm voice and fully supported by science, by U.S. legal precedent and by demonstrable evidence: Creationism is not science, regardless of whether it is labeled "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design". Evolution is science because: Evolution is testable: (e.g. if evolution is true, we should find a fossil for this unknown species in this location) Example: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4... Evolution is falsifiable: 29 examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/... Evolution has known mechanisms: genetics, DNA, natural selection http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/ Evolution is observable: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html?_r=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Because it is science, because it is the foundation of biology, evolution is taught in our schools (those schools that care about their science education). Creationism is not science Creationism offers no mechanisms (how did life "appear" - out of thin air, did the mud rise up and become animals, etc.) Creationism is not testable. Creationism is not falsifiable (nothing supernatural can be falsified because by definition it doesn't exist in the natural world, where science works. It's just faith) Creationism is not observable. Creationism has been ruled legally to not qualify as science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" are just labels to make Creationism look scientifically legitimate to people who don't understand science. Without the Bible, there would be no "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", so they are driven by faith. Finally, you'll find that creationism is often supported by lies. For example, every educated person knows that men and dinosaurs didn't live at the same time. But a few people lie and say that they did. Sadly, the people who tell these lies usually consider themselves very religious. Ironic, huh?

Sherisse Sherisse
Ken Ham's argument came down to "The Bible says this." And the sad thing is I'm not exaggerating, that was pretty much his entire argument. The even more embarrassing thing is that when Bill Nye responds "We don't know" to a question, e.g. "What caused the Big Bang", Ham would smugly respond "Well actually we do know, it says so in the Bible...". The sheer arrogance of it all, I tell you. Bill Nye was too much of a gentleman to call him out on it but even the audience eventually stopped laughing every time Ham mentioned the Bible because they could see Ham doesn't have any answers either and was just pulling it out of his behind. Has it changed my opinion slightly? Yes, it showed me that Ham is an even bigger idiot than I previously thought.
👍 100 | 👎 3

Penina Penina
Bill Nye undoubtedly won. Well, except if you're a hardcore creationist and, like Ken Ham, would never change your mind. Seriously, when Ken Ham said that there was no argument nor amount of evidence that could be presented to him that could convince him that he was wrong... well, that was the final nail in the coffin in the debate.
👍 95 | 👎 0

Marissa Marissa
Yes, I watched it. When asked what could change their minds, their answers were - Bill Nye: Evidence Ken Ham: Nothing. That tells you all you need to know. If you really want to expand your mind, go watch Moving Naturalism Forward on Youtube.
👍 90 | 👎 -3

Kristina Kristina
I watched it. My opinions about whether evolution has happened weren't changed. I was actually expecting Ham to be more convincing, even though I thought he was wrong. Creationists can output a lot of fallacies in a short amount of time, and these take a long time to rebut. I was worried about Nye for that reason but he did very well.
👍 85 | 👎 -6

Kristina Originally Answered: Evolution Vs. Creationism and why?
While media coverage of school-board debates over curricula might make it sound like the two views are evenly opposed, that's simply not the case. The scientific theory of evolution/speciation is the culmination of rational investigation over many decades by some of the smartest people in the world. The belief in creation is just that—a belief. Good for you for exploring beyond blind belief. _

If you have your own answer to the question methodology section, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.