Why Bill Nye lost the debate last night.



I LOVE debates!! Ask my poor husband!
 I vow one day to go to law school, because in my humble opinion, there is no one that would make a better lawyer then someone with a math degree. Logic, problem solving, proofs, yes, yes and yes! So when I heard about this debate my head was spinning. These types of debates are typically “below” all the evolution big wigs, so this was our chance! I wondered what Ken Ham would say, which smoking gun he would bring up. Would he use Darwin’s own words to damn Bill Nye’s ideas? Which proofs would he bring out? The anticipation was almost too much. I was praying for Ken Ham, telling others to pray for Ken Ham.
I could not wait to watch this debate.
And then, two days before the debate I realized I wouldn’t even be able to watch the it live. Weeks ago I had received free tickets to a NHL Panthers hockey game for our whole family. And it was the same night!!
 I gladly went to the game, and enjoyed the family time. But I couldn’t help but wonder how the debate was going. That’s when I started checking twitter. And my heart began sinking!
NO!! What? Why? Even my Christian friends were disappointed.
 I literally felt sick. I was desperate to know what had happened. I really wanted to watch it online. Like now.
When we got home from the game exhaustion was setting in. The debate was over. The vote was in. It felt like November 2012 all over again. Should I even watch it? What was the point?
Yeah right! Of course I had to watch it.
So with the kids and husband asleep, I clicked on the archived event with incredible anxiety and began watching. The truth is that I was riveted from start to finish. But I had one question. Was I watching the same debate?
Ken Ham started off strong with the grammar stage. Undoubtedly, we have to define our terms if we are going to employ them throughout the discussion. However, despite Ham’s rigorous and through explanations of the vocabulary they would be using, Bill Nye refused to adhere to said logical constraints and  instead used demeaning innuendos and labeled  belief in a created universe as “Ken Ham’s view” as if Ken Ham invented the theory of creation. The reality is, however, that Bill Nye could have just as easily and accurately said “Francis Bacon’s view” or “Galileo’s view” or “Isaac Newton’s view,” but that would have ended the whole debate right then and there as I will explain later.
There were little things stylistically that I thought Ham could have done differently, or points on which Ham could have challenged Nye, throughout, but for the sake of time and my sanity, I am just going to go over the fundamental fallacies that in essence caused a big loss for Nye.
First of all, Bill Nye made the claim that he, and all scientists since the beginning of time, welcome new theories! (Wait why are we here again?) Yes, he spoke for all scientists everywhere throughout all of history, declaring the joy they feel when someone offers an opposing view with any proof. But I, for one, know this to be false. Why? Because of my FAVORITE math class ever. The History of Calculus. It was fascinating! Seriously, great teacher. Jaw dropping stories. And how did it portray some of those great scientists that produced new ideas to the scientific community? They were attacked and vilified or worse, murdered!! Surely not, you say. Oh yes, I argue. So much so that Isaac Newton eventually gave up sharing his ideas with anyone. And what happened? The whole country of England suffered. They were left about a hundred years behind their competitors mathematically because one of the greatest minds of our time (a creationist, ironically enough) was done with fighting the “all accepting” scientists. Wait, so because someone who believed in a creator God, stopped contributing to science, his whole country’s mathematical progress was halted? Interesting.Very Interesting.
Next, he makes the assertion that creationists have the ultimate potential, nay destiny, of ruining progress and eliminating all further advances in science.  Yes, America will cease to be a leader and all will be lost if we teach creation! This claim is easily disputed too, but mostly because his premise is more than a little shaky. His big concern is the education of our children right? We creationists can believe all this fairytale, Ken Ham, stuff, concedes Nye, but please, leave the kids out of it! After all, America’s science and math education is currently leading the charts! Right at the top! Right? We can’t lose that!
Oh, wait,what? A 2009 study found that U.S. students ranked 25th among 34 countries in math and science, behind nations like China, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Finland.
Oh, well, that must be because there is so much Bible and creation and stuff in schools nowadays, right? Nope.
So faulty premise to start because we are not at the top for science and math education. But the end is wrong too. And that, frankly is where Mr. Nye loses this debate.
This whole controversy started months ago when he claimed that parents should not be allowed to teach their children creation because it is dumb, and their kids will be dumb (paraphrase.)
And that is what Mr. Nye kept driving home tonight.
Bill Nye: (Paraphrase) Anyone who believes in creation can never invent or predict anything. Evolutionists always predict amazing things, 
Ken Ham: like because of evolution we knew that people didn’t really need their appendix, or tonsils, ya know, we were evolving past those silly things, so we can just take them out, whenever we want, no harm no…….
…wait what?
 Oh, right, ignore that prediction, that was a little off. But seriously, where was I, oh yeah, if you believe in creation, you can never contribute to science and predict awesome things like evolutionists can.
Then Ken Ham brings out some people from this list of people that support the “Ken Ham Way”:
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
  • Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
  • Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
  • Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
  • Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
  • James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
  • Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
  • William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
  • William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
  • Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
  • Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
  • Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
  • James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
  • P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
  • John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
  • John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
  • Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
  • John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
And that is when it was over.
 If Bill Nye’s whole point was that creationists can never predict or invent, he lost. That’s it.
And believe you me, that was and is his point.  (see videos below)
Listen to his closing statements in which he praises the scientific process (The one promoted by creationist Francis Bacon ) and reiterates that if we start teaching creation, we will be “outcompeted” (not a word) by other countries. That was his final thought.
Now I want to talk to the Christians. Ken Ham had an incredible amount of ground to cover, and arguments to answer. He disputed the carbon dating and got all sciency, yet that was completely ignored. He had a short amount of time to accomplish an enormous task. So he proved what mattered. Yes, he could have went back and forth with him about specifics, but when he did, it was completely dismissed. Ken Ham stuck to the main point with focus. He listed some of these brilliant scientists from the past and some from the present all that contributed to science in immeasurable ways, furthering science, not crippling it. End of debate. It should have been over.
Not only that, but when, dear Christian, is sharing scripture with millions something for us to be disappointed about? There was nothing that Ken Ham was going to say that those staunch evolutionists hadn’t heard before and vice versa. The point Ken made time and again was that it all came down to how they were interpreting the data, and that they each, according to their own studies and faith (oh yes, faith), will continue to believe those things regardless of any laundry list of science facts stated. But here is where I differ with the news articles that say “No one will change their opinion from this debate.” I know that God’s word is living, and active and sharper than a two edged sword. I know that God’s Word does not return void. So I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that through this debate, lives were changed. And that, is amazing.
Before watching the debate I felt sick reading all the reactions. Afterward, I am elated and proud. There are some really great discussion points that I am going to explore in future blogs, like, how Bill Nye actually proved the ark could exist, and also confirmed the need to seek after God! But as my mom says, my blogs tend to be a bit wordy, so I better quit for now! In fact, if you made it this far, thank you! You too mom!

****Edited to add these videos which were the inspiration for the post, along with his previous interviews

70 thoughts on “Why Bill Nye lost the debate last night.

  1. It's fun to have discussions and do so in a civil way. But isn't the real issue: “what do you believe”? Not the “he said, she said”– everyone out there reading this: what do you believe? Let's hear from everyone who reads this. After all, isn't that how we start a dialogue? Isn't that how you move or change the world? With you? “WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?”


  2. I would add to that, Scott. “What do you believe, and why?”
    The why is an incredibly important component, I would think.

    Of course, we should probably put the question in some sort of context.
    I believe a great deal many things… but in this particular context you would probably agree that it is my disbelief that would define me moreso,

    I do not believe in any gods because the burden of proof has not been met for me.


  3. It is not necessary for you to leave, but for me, it's really important that the vibe is positive, being able to disagree while respecting others. I know this is not a common theme in blogs, but it is for me. And that to which you compared my Lord and God was extremely offensive, not to mention just so long. I think a good rule of thumb would be that a comment shouldn't be as long as the original post. Conversation is good. And I pray that eyes would be opened.


  4. You said, “I think a good rule of thumb would be that a comment shouldn't be as long as the original post. “

    I can COMPLETELY understand why you feel that way, and this is your blog after all so you clearly have a right to run it how you please. I for one have been enjoying the conversations going on on this page (though I will agree that JCS's wall of text may have been a bit much to read all at once).

    The point I wanted to make is that commenting is something harder than making the original argument. It could easily take a paragraph to respond to something which only takes one sentence to say. If I write “It's a fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old,” it would take you many more words to make the case that my sentence is false.

    Anyhow – just trying to explain why some reponses might be a bit on the long side.
    Perhaps commenters should try to just address ONE point at a time?

    Anyhow – thanks for the conversations on here. I'm finding it very interesting.


  5. hi….thank you for this blog you have made…this debate is very interesting to me…and i really do hope that it may result positively to everyone..my family and i are great believers in our God…i will be following your posts and sir ken ham's because i still need to understand more….by the way i love both science and the bible….im doing my research on all the too complex things on the debate 🙂 thanks again 🙂


  6. hi!!! thank you for this blog, i find the debate very interesting, my family and i are great believers in our God and i do hope that this debate result positively to everyone. i would be following your posts and sir Ken Ham's because it helped me understand more. i'm still doing research on the too many complex things they are talking about, i would love to study what really is creationism and other science stuff. by the way i love both science and the bible. again thank you 🙂


  7. Just a few basics.Darwinism says everything has and is always changing form one thing to another.Not changing from say smaller to larger but changing from one species to another.For instance lizards changed to birds. Since they say it happened in the past they also say it is happening now. Can that be proven through the scientific method? If not it is not science. Creation says that every thing reproduces after it's own kind. Can this be proven through the scientific method? Everything on earth always reproduces after it's own kind . If my coconut tree drops a nut it will grow a coconut tree. Never a sable palm or anything else EVER. And so it goes.


  8. Well, I believe the quote you used in your original post is unverifiable and has no citation or source. I also believe that Francis Collins accepts the theory of evolution.

    Those are two of the many things I believe.


  9. Scott – please give a specific description of what you are asking. You said evolutionists claim things change from 'one species to another.' And, I'm sure you know, there are MANY examples of changes from “one species to another,” but even though that is what you wrote I suspect it is not what you are looking for. You are looking for a change in 'kind,' aren't you?

    Speciation (the creation of a new species) has happened many times under observation, but you will never find a lizard giving birth to a bird. That is a misrepresentation of how evolution works. Macroevolution is nothing more than the accumulated changes of microevolution over time. Significant changes can be seen right now (for example lizards who have evolved live birth as opposed to egg laying), and new species are seen quite often, but if you are looking for examples of a dog giving birth to an ape, that is simply not going to happen. And that is not what the theory of evolution claims would happen.

    If you could give a concrete definition of what is specifically meant by 'kind' then perhaps we can talk about what has been observed and what hasn't. I have never seen a solid definition of the term, and as far as I know it isn't one that is generally used in Taxonomy. It's impossible to talk about anything in detail if we don't define our terms and goals from the outset.


  10. I'm not so sure about this ” I'm sure you know part”. As scientific creationists we always have to have proof. Proof means the scientific method.What species changed to another? The problem with the word evolution is” what is it” ? Micro evolution is people getting larger or smaller. Small changes in the species. Macro evolution is what the Darwin faith means, and it is molecules to man.Fish to people . Lizards to birds. That takes real faith.


  11. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to side step any evidence, I just didn't want to spend a lot of time compiling examples when what you were asking for clearly isn't what you seem to want. A change from species to species is an issue of taxonomy. When significant microevolutionary changes have accumulated then organisms are often classified as a new species. There are many examples of that (if we are considering the entire animal and plant kingdoms). But again, those would be examples of speciation, changing from one species to another, but they would still be what you might consider the same 'kind.'

    That was my point. You asked for a change from one species to another, but that doesn't seem to be what you want to see. You seem to be asking for a shift in 'kind.'

    And without having a definition of 'kind' it is difficult to discuss, much less show examples, of a shift.


  12. Scott – I replied to this comment on the 14th (if I'm not mistaken), I'm not sure why the reply hasn't shown. It's possible Lauren didn't post it for some reason, or that it never went through.

    (which makes me realize how wrong it is to submit another comment in order to ask about the missing comment) 🙂


  13. No worries at all, I never assumed it was intentional. Thank you for posting it now, I'm relieved because I had forgotten what I wrote. 🙂

    I hope your Valentine's Day was a great one.


  14. Looks like it was a moot point anyhow, Lauren, as Scott seems to have left the conversation. I kept checking back every other day or so to see if he'd responded, but I guess he lost interest. That's too bad because I was looking forward to finally getting a concrete definition of 'kind' so that we could move the conversation forward.

    I just wanted to come back to thank you for hosting such a spirited discussion on your blog. I find that conversations are never very interesting when everyone agrees, and I appreciate your willingness to allow commentary that may not align with your own.

    I wish you all the best in the future.


  15. It's important to know why you believe what you believe, and that is never so tested as when you are challenged with an opposing view. I haven't had the time to devote as much time as I would like to this blog these days, but keep coming back as I will be addressing the flood and faulty fossil findings and what they mean! 🙂


  16. I think it is important to keep all issues as simple as possible. Many words does not a point make. The bottom line of origins of life is Religious Darwinists believe that all life came from nothing, that is non life, and all life came from an accidental puddle of slime. And Genesis believers , those that believe an intelligence designed all we see and says everything reproduces after it's own kind, know that there has never been anything that has ever disproved any word of the Genesis account of creation. Not one thing.Lets stick with the scientific method.Roma Downey said “Either there is no God or there is only God”. Of coarse we mean the God of Abraham.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s