from The Raw Story
The former childrens television host and outspoken critic of creationist teaching will discuss whether the Bible-based version of Earths origins is a viable model Feb. 4 at the museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
The debate starts at 7 p.m., and tickets will cost $25.
Ham, the president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, said he was excited to face off against Nye.
Its quite rare these days for such a well-known evolutionist to publicly debate a creationist so we do expect a lot of media interest, Ham said on his Facebook page.
But not everyone is thrilled by the idea.
Matt Young, blogging at The Pandas Thumb, urged Nye to reconsider his participation, saying that it legitimized creationism.
There is nothing to debate, and a debate with Mr. Nye will only give Mr. Ham credibility that he does not deserve and increase not only his visibility but also his ability to attract investors, Young wrote.
The blogger noted the example of Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt, who has said she refuses to participate in events with Holocaust deniers.
I sometimes bowdlerize that to I do not debate liars, and it is a policy I recommend to anyone who is tempted to debate a creationist, Young wrote. Whether you win or lose, you will convince no one and will only add to the prominence of your opponent, who can now say, See, I debated a prominent scientist; I must be taken seriously now.
I have read through the comments on this thread and can’t see why this raises such debate. Looking at it from a social perspective it would appear that the story in Genesis of how it all came into existence is no different from that which science describes (God according to religious texts being unknowable could be described as a singularity). True the bible refers to days but that was a bit creative but served to keep bronze age, tent dwelling goat molesters happy about the whole thing. They would have found hundreds of millions of years for each stage too difficult to comprehend.
What I find difficult to understand is how people can be so closed to the propositions put forward from each side. Absolute proof would deny faith and as we know religion relies on faith. My only argument is how a god or super-architect would design something (us) that destroyed his supposed greatest creation (us). There are creatures and diseases that rob innocent children of life, and of the ability to enjoy and wonder at what surrounds them. So why would that happen, spite? Vindictiveness? Ineptitude?
I once asked my RI teacher at school to explain why God would allow the death and suffering of innocent children in the floods of the 60’s that wiped out so many in East Pakistan, I did not get an answer that made any sense. Since then I have asked the same or similar questions of those who profess to lead on religious matters, they could not provide an answer that could explain why such things should happen. Now if they can’t explain why such fundamental things happen and how they fit into the whole argument of religion and what a deity does then how are we to listen to them argue for creationism.
I believe that every individual has the right to believe in whatever they want to as long as it doesn’t interfere with the same rights of any other individual. Believe in what you want but don’t try and foist those beliefs on others. I for one believe that we should teach as many different perspectives on this subject as possible because knowledge is power, whereas indoctrination only fosters hate and bigotry
As a great man said at the end of his television show, “May your god go with you”
Here are some further comments:
2 days ago
The winner of this debate is going to be purely a matter of individual perspective so it is an exercise in futility but I would bet it will be entertaining as hell. I never understood why creationism and evolution weren’t compatible for Christians. I mean do they know how their God allegedly created the earth? Do they know how long his days were? I would think, from my unfortunate experience with the religion, that for a Christian, the height of arrogance would be to assume you know exactly how it was done. I know there would be discrepencies but they seem to be able to “prove” anything they want with the Bible depending on what they feel like on any given day so I’m sure they could figure something out to account for those.
13 hours ago
The reason why evolution continues to be attacked is because the most fundamentalist of religious people, those who still read and believe what the bible actually says as opposed to the rest of the faithful who don’t read it and/or puck and chhose from it, realise that the truth of evolution renders the story of Adam and Eve as myth. Meaning there was no original sin, so no fall from grace, and ultimately no need for anyone to have their life sacrificed to secure forgiveness for humanity. Simplistically, Jesus’ resurection story is also rendered as myth by the truth of evolution and what that means for the foundational beliefs of christianity.
Chris Powell Jerusha
a day ago
Oh, please… Consider Euclid’s postulates from which a vast plane geometry is constructed. No God or god invoked anywhere. Using this geometry great buildings were built, bridges thrown up and ships launched – and who knows what else. Then Galileo rolling balls down slopes of different angles to form dynamic physics. No God or god invoked there either. And Maxwell with his awesome laws on electromagnetism which prompted Einstein’s special relativity. At no point was a God or god assumed. All that science without a supernatural being in sight!
The First humans From Australia Not Africa?