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.
___
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
The other point that I've tried to make a few times is this - if the atheists are right what negative impact is there for those of us who do believe? They will point to specific aspects of a religion (their favorite is "you are your brother's keeper" and then extrapolate that to their own extreme. I do not accept that that statement makes me a slave to my "brother," rather that I treat them with dignity and respect and as I would have them treat me) and make gross exaggerations as to what a specific tenet leads to. I often point to the same problem with their doctrine of "selfishness" but they refuse to accept it because it does not fit their view (the issue is that if there is no accounting for oneself, what prevents the person from taking on the ultimate level of selfishness and taking whatever they want and killing whomever they want? They never want to answer that issue with logic, merely with some mystical - it's not in the other person's self interest to do so because it will lead to their own demise - but that then brings up the "baddest ass on the block").
On the other hand, what if we are right? There is a final reckoning for one's existence. Doesn't necessitate that you adhere to one specific flavor of religion or another (in fact, even though I am Catholic, I doubt that any faction has the absolute truth). Then that does call for one person to respect another person, and leads to reduction in force used against others.
I agree that contradictions should be avoided. I would caution, however, against unwittingly labeling something a contradiction just because one does not understand how it could be at the present time. In order for something truly to be a contradiction, it must openly defy something else which we know to be true. Therefore in order to declare something a contradiction, we must of necessity understand all the conditions of such and be able to verify that there is no possibility under which something may be true. That's a tall order for our limited human minds (or at least mine) and I would strongly encourage this classification to be used extremely sparingly, as it presumes complete subject knowledge.
I agree that reality is objective. I would also posit this idea: is it possible that there are other methods by which to perceive reality? Is there such a thing as intuition or the so-called "sixth sense"? If so, then to limit our understanding of reality to just the first five senses is to inherently bias any rational decisions we make based on this data, wouldn't you agree?
I would also posit that if such a "sixth sense" existed (the one that could loosely be inferred from Christian dogma to be the Holy Spirit), then without this sixth sense, matters perceivable to this extra sense would be and would remain wholly insensible and therefore wholly irrational to those relying upon only the basic five senses in the same way that someone relying on three dimensions would be at a complete loss to describe quantum physics.
Without reason, inventions are not possible. Observation and logical integration is the essence of reason and was required for every invention.
So is predicting ballistic trajectories of free falling bodies in a vacuum a process of faith? If so, then faith requires reason. If not, then you might as well predict that falling bodies will fall up; in which case faith is useless in making predictions.
You are right in one sense. A prediction may go astray if we make wrong assumptions or forget to account for important variables, but what did happen was necessary base on the causes present. We can learn and improve our predictive ability. Reason allows this process to be accurate within a certain error bracket range. What does faith do to improve this process? I don't see it doing anything.
Can that belief be in vain? Certainly. The results may not pan out to be what was originally envisioned or desired. But the original act was born of a hope that one would sacrifice something now to gain something later - that one would invest time in order to gain knowledge, wealth, etc. There is no guarantee - only a hope.
"Reason is man's only valid method of cognition..."
Reason alone did not bring us invention. It took the imagination in concert with reason. "Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." -- Thomas Edison
Reason is limited without imagination. Reason only tells us that one plus one equals two or that If A Therefore B. Reason, however, can not postulate A in the first place! Imagination is based on a hope or belief in something that may be, but may not be. Reason only deals in certainties. Reason is the proof of the formula, but not the formulation.
The series will show and explain many prophecies that were given hundreds of years, sometimes thousands before they occurred. Keep in mind that there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled, so necessarily, they'll be in the future. It will look at the probability of that occurring by chance. The doubts and questions you have are addressed in the material.
This is a thinking man's study and, as always, the truth is in the eyes of the beholder. I'll be around if you need more clarification or help.
I apologize for not giving you better instructions on downloading the file, so I'm mostly at fault., but not for the information spoken in the study. I hope this helps.
One of the limitations of man is that he cannot gain knowledge through faith (how you seem to mean it sometimes anyway). Do you see your understanding of faith as foggy and shifty when you use the term? Or is it always a clear and precise meaning?
"How do we obtain knowledge except through the test of faith?"
By a process of reason. Reason is man's only valid method of cognition and this can be demonstrated -- I wouldn't want you to take my word on faith.
"We gain knowledge by trusting in parents, teachers, friends, etc. that they can instruct us in matters wherein we are ignorant."
If others tried to instruct that contradictions are true, then I wouldn't trust them for long -- you shouldn't either. It is the individual learner who is responsible for what he judges to be true, and ignorant men have self-taught themselves before -- how else do you think we have acquired the knowledge we do share?
Sure the current understanding of QM and string theory may be arrived at by some observations and mathematical deductions, but so could circular orbits. Both are wrong, however, and for the same reason -- they contain contradictions. QM and string theory will stop progress until their faulty assumptions are challenged -- one particle can and yet cannot be at one location in the same time and in the same respect (probability cloud). Sure probability is a great tool for getting a percentage of some outcome, but probability is making a guess without enough information -- it's not a state of nature as current QM scientists would have us believe.
You should know by now that I'm not selling anything, only offering you information to think about.
I'm going to have to disagree about your assertion that faith and reason work together. I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you mean when you use the terms. But from the context I think I can extract some meaning. Just correct me if I'm wrong.
Since you're on this site, I suspect that you use Mrs. Rand's definition of reason: "Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." -- faith and force: destroyers of the modern world
From what I see you write, you essentially say knowledge from faith is not derived from our rational faculty. For example, when you say god is incomprehensible yet you know it exists, you are essentially saying we cannot rationally know and yet you know anyway.
Also we have a disagreement on what the meaning of words and concepts are. Contradictions aren't something to be considered as possible just because we don't understand or because we lack the words or the meaning of words to express something. Contradictions don't exist physically in reality. Reality is objective. We must form out minds to be consistent with reality -- i.e., our ideas and thoughts are to be free of contradictions from beginning to end if they are to be true. A contradiction in our mind is essentially admitting an error in our thoughts, since it cannot be consistent with reality.
Knowledge (if define as true understanding about facts of reality) is only possible if we logically integrate the data we perceive from our senses. Knowledge isn't limited to past events, as you suggest. We are able to predict many things to great degrees of accuracy into the future using reason (but not faith).
Bigotry is arriving at predetermined conclusions regardless of any attempt to reasonably ascertain the veracity of a claim - aka prejudice (or pre-judging). Everyone is guilty of it at some point. The true test of knowledge seekers is the challenge to pull down one's own prejudicial barriers long enough to make an objective judgement on a matter. It means admitting that whatever prejudice you may have applied to a situation is less important than the real truth. Skepticism only turns to bigotry when one is not willing to examine the matter at all because one has "pre-judged" the outcome and doesn't wish to apply the true test to see if the real outcome matches the envisioned outcome.
Regarding religion, to me it is simply the way someone lives their life. It may coincide with a particular credo that some formally refer to as a "religion", leading to significant confusion on the matter. Spirituality to me is merely a measure of how well one conforms to their selected credo. To me, one can be a very religious or spiritual person - even if that credo is of their own design.
You write "If "one reference" is a poor measure of veracity in science, why isn't that possible for biblical "citations"?"
You may not think so, but I am in complete agreement with you. Just as in a court of law, the testimony of a single witness is usually and probably should be taken with a healthy degree of uncertainty. What should be recognized, however, is that the Bible is not a single book written by a single author. It is an aggregation of the testimonies of many men written and passed down through the ages. Even many Christians forget this fact and treat the Bible as if it were a single volume.
Of more import, however, is not a discussion on the veracity of the Bible, however, but on the principles of the search for truth. True principles will evince the truth regardless of their source. If one wishes for a second witness to verify the first (the Bible), one should by all means seek for such. If it can not be found, I find no reason one can not conclude that the lack of support is in and of itself telling.
Load more comments...