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 3.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ygwecjgizwv0c...
Look at the sessions 1-4 with real player, plus there are notes to boot. It will surprise you. I'll be around if you have any questions. There is no costs for these. 8-)
If one acts according to his beliefs, is this not the verifiable test of his faith? It doesn't take the "leap from the lion's head" a la Indiana Jones to illustrate a test of one's faith - that is merely a more spectacular example. Much more common are the everyday things: honesty, integrity, kindness, self-control. These are every bit the evidence of faith as the scientific confirmation of the Higgs' Boson. The only thing that has changed is the type of hypothesis being tested - one of philosophy rather than sub-atomic particle physics. ;)
What I think is the better question is this: in what principles should we place our faith? That to me is a MUCH more accurate question and one where we can reasonably expect to form hypotheses which can either be confirmed or refuted.
"In Christianity the concept [that] God is Love is untestable. after all we know love is an emotion which may or may not be backed by reason. One can test the power of love but cannot test that God is it. We must believe a book."
How do we obtain knowledge except through the test of faith? Similarly, how can one understand "love" (properly rendered as charity or the "pure love of Christ") without participating in it? And is not the participation the test of the precept? Are not the increased feelings of satisfaction and brotherly concern for others not the "proof"? I would argue that every tenet set forth in Christianity is not an invitation to watch others or merely to proclaim "belief" but to actually DO.
We gain knowledge by trusting in parents, teachers, friends, etc. that they can instruct us in matters wherein we are ignorant. We place our faith in their abilities to bring us knowledge.
As to miracles, the scriptures clearly say that miracles are not to beget faith, but to confirm it. They are the proof that faith was not exercised in vain, but they can not provide the foundation of faith for the unbelieving. Before one can be taught, they must be willing to exercise the smallest particle of faith that perhaps there is something more than what they presently recognize. Conceit and arrogance in one's own prowess must be overruled with the premise or possibility of something outside one's present sphere. One must risk to gain the reward, or one will get what one has always got. ;)
I highly recommend a very short book that explores this concept called "Flatland". It's more of a short story, really, but presents the same question from the perspective of a two-dimensional being who suddenly encounters a three-dimensional being and is suddenly forced to attempt to conceptualize his world now that he has suddenly been shown a truly radical view of such.
To move on, I would propose to examine the assertion that faith provides for contradictions. I agree that such a presentation is nonsensical and should be discarded. I would rather say that faith is what motivates us to act now so that we may see a future benefit - nothing more, nothing less. Faith is ironically an implicit acknowledgement of a human limitation - our inability to predict with absolute certainty!
Faith motivates us to take the test in the hopes of a desired outcome, but it in no way dictates the outcome. If the outcome is what we expect, then our faith is proven and becomes knowledge. If the outcome differs, we must re-evaluate the premise for our faith in order to maintain reason. To me, faith promotes the exploration of reason and provides the mechanism for reason to become knowledge. They work together - not at odds.
Does that mean that some - both religious and not - unreasonably cite "faith" when contending about religious matters? Indelibly so, and they do so out of ignorance and a failure to recognize or use both their faith and reasoning capacities in concert. This is the dogmatic approach that is just as bigoted as the scientist because it precludes the addition of knowledge except through approved sources! I cringe at the thought.
I must thank you profusely for your careful and reasonable approach. I am enjoying this discussion immensely!
Seriously, though, I don't have an answer for the first one. Man has a limited knowledge of such. We'll probably find out at some point after this life. I'm more worried about making it to that point. ;)
As to where He "hangs out", I would say that it is less important than whether or not He can be reached by us. Just as doctors can now operate remotely on patients using the Internet, I would imagine that proximity probably has very little to do with exercise of God's power. To me, it's far more important to know that my questions have answers and that I can seek those answers from authoritative sources.
Should one examine their claims? Absolutely and in all honesty. Should one casually dismiss such claims simply because they are found in a "religious" text? I would caution that one should take great care in doing so lest they similarly disqualify themselves as bigots! Is it the label or title on the book which declares its veracity or rather the content of such?
Just as in science, one should seek independent confirmation. No scientific theory is accepted as such on the basis of only one paper, so too neither should a concept of spirituality be without confirmation.
The love your neighbor as yourself really boils down to respecting those around you and treating them like you enjoy being treated. Not everyone makes it easy for you to do that. Sometimes that means going to bat for someone who is being taken advantage of by others because they don't see the manipulation. Sometimes it means taking the time to explain concepts to someone who is seeking answers. Love thy neighbor as thyself can translate to helping those around you as you would want to be helped.
The wording or semantics may be different but the humanity behind it is the same. I try to treat others around me with respect but I also won't be a doormat. It's a fine line we walk and always strive to do better than the last encounter. Sometimes we amaze ourselves but then sometimes we screw up big time, but we still continue to strive for the ideal.
A commandment (not a pleasant word) to love 'the Lord your God' has no meaning unless you are already a believer, to 'Love you neighbor as yourself' does not mean much in the religious language but is sensible if expressed in humanistic terms such as all rights you claim you shall allow to others- equal rights to free speech, beliefs if any, property rights and so on. As to an eternity with the Creator, the Confucian ethic of giving respect to elders, as in the '10' as 'honor thy father and thy mother', seems a better precept for good behavior. So there is some common ground, the good things do not require a belief system but can be derived from observation of what works.
The question about when Earth was created is a scientific claim.
As to the human race becoming God or a god, guess it depends on your view point. That of us or that of one of our creations. It's a quandary many scientist and ethicist have been trying to deal with for a number of years now, without a conclusion at this point.
Congratulation for including the quote from Oppenheimer. From my reading of recorders of the event referenced, he wasn't toying with or imagining the concept of being a god. He was in deep fear that an Atomic explosion or combination of such could possibly initiate a chain reaction of some sort in the earth or atmosphere and he was quoting a line from the Lord Vishnu of the Hindu religion. There were some working in the project whom thought a remote possibility of some such chain reaction was possible. Remember how the population got the idea of 'The China Syndrome' after Three Mile Island, believing a nuclear meltdown could bore through the planet.
In common law, the fundamental axiom was you own yourself. (Blackstone and Locke). No deity needed for that.
By the way, the full lecture is around 50 minutes long. It might explain it more fully to complete the point it is making. Food for thought. 8-)
I did not see that the video made a point-I was left with where are you going with this? good vaudeville though
Load more comments...