Debate Teacher Reacts: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

As far as the Word of God is concerned, no, no one's ever going to convince me that the Word of God is not true.

Imagine hearing from a skeptic, what would change your mind about all of this? And they say, well, you know, I'm an atheist, and I can't prove it to you. But you can test it, but I can't prove it, and you'll never convince me that it's false.

It's... what?

Hey everybody, another episode of Debate Teacher Reacts coming at you right now. This one was a request, okay, so I'm happy to do it. If you want to see more videos in this series, the way you're going to tell me is by liking the video, and then, of course, subscribing so you don't miss out on any of the upcoming episodes that we do.

Listen, also, if you want me to look at a particular debate, let me know in the comments below, and I'll do my best to watch those for you. Well, in this video, we're looking at evolution versus creation.

Bill Nye versus Ken Ham. Now, this one got lively, okay? This was a debate back in 2014. I think it was at the Creation Museum. At some point, weapons got involved. They started stabbing each other with knives.

It got really crazy. I can't look at the full debate. It's a very long debate. I'm going to leave the link for that in the show notes below. Definitely check it out. But I'm going to zoom in on a specific segment because, as you know, I love cross-examination.

I think that's where it's at, baby. There was no formal cross-exam in this video, but we're going to look at something that gets very close.

How does creationism account for the celestial bodies, planets, stars, moons, moving further and further apart? And what function does that serve in the grand design?

Well, when it comes to looking at the universe, of course, we believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And I believe our creationist astronomers would say, yeah, you can observe the universe expanding.

Why God is doing that? In fact, in the Bible, it even says he stretches out the heavens and seems to indicate that there is an expansion of the universe. And so we would say, yeah, you can observe that.

That fits with what we call observational science, exactly why God did it that way. I can't answer that question, of course, because, you know, the Bible says that God made the heavens for his glory. And that's why he made the stars that we see out there.

And it's to tell us how great he is. He's an infinite creator God. And the more that you understand what that means, that God is all-powerful, infinite, you stand back in awe. You realize how small we are.

You realize, wow, that God would consider this planet is so significant that he created human beings here, knowing they would sin and yet stepped into history to die for us and be raised from the dead.

The opera of supreme gift of salvation.

Wow.

What a God.

When you respond to a question where the parameters of the debate are such, and you bring in the Bible and you say the Bible says this, the Bible says that, instead of perhaps saying, because Ken Ham is supposed to be defending a biblical creation model, right?

Instead of saying, well, you know what, moderator, judges, the Bible gives an account of creation that matches the process of the origin of the universe that we can discover as we study it. And that would be one form of evidence for the creation account.

When you just say, well, you know, the Bible says, and you know, God is omniscient, and he's benevolent, and he's all-knowing, and he's all-powerful, and you know what you're doing? You're preaching.

You're not debating at that point. So this didn't really go well for Ken Ham. I wonder how Nye is going to response. Let's go ahead and find out.

There's a question that troubles us all from the time we are absolutely youngest and first able to think, and that is, where did we come from? Where did I come from? And this question is so compelling that we've invented the science of astronomy.

We've invented life science. We've invented physics. We've discovered these natural laws so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from. To you, when it says he invented the stars also, that's satisfying.

You're done.

Oh, good.

Okay. To me, when I look at the night sky, I want to know what's out there. I'm driven. I want to know if what's out there is any part of me, and indeed it is. The, oh, by the way, I find compelling, you are satisfied.

And the big thing I want from you, Mr. Ham, is can you come up with something that you can predict? Do you have a creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature?

That question is dumb. The problem is whenever you get into a debate, if you really want to take down your opponent, then you need to fully understand his position. Nye hasn't done that because creationism includes a feature of what's called divine agency.

An agency is a variable that cannot ultimately be accounted for. You can do that perhaps if you study people from a sociological perspective. Okay, but God is not like that. A lot of his qualities and motives for doing this or that thing are not given to humanity, and that's where you get the phrase from Christians, and it upsets atheists whenever they hear it, but God moves or God works in mysterious ways.

So for Nye to ask for a model that can incorporate divine agency, a predictable model, that just goes to show he doesn't understand Ham's position fully, and he'd lose some points for that. On the other hand, Ham just did such a horrible job with his answer, I'd give an advantage to Nye here because at least he's sticking closely to the strategy.

The strategy is to stay in the lanes of science and empirical evidence so that this is a recognized criteria between both debaters so that we can have differences and disagree, right? So Nye is sticking closer to that.

I'd give advantage to Nye at this point.

How did the atoms that created the Big Bang get there?

This is the great mystery. You've hit the nail on the head. So what was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us. This is what we want to know. Let's keep looking. Let's keep searching. When I was young, it was presumed that the universe was slowing down.

It's a Big Bang, except it's in outer space. There's no air, so it goes out like that.

I would like to be in Nye's class. Nye is a good teacher. He's very dynamic. He's very expressive. These are really good traits and qualities to have in a teacher. You want this expressive. I like that.

That's good, and that helps him.

So people presumed that it would slow down, that the universe, the gravity especially, would hold everything together, and maybe it's going to come back and explode again. People went out, and the mathematical expression is, is the universe flat?

That's a mathematical expression. Will the universe slow down, slow down, slow down, asymptotically without ever stopping? Well, in 2004, Saul Perlmutter and his colleagues went looking for the rate at which the universe was slowing down.

Let's go out and measure it. We're doing it with this extraordinary system of telescopes around the world, looking at the night sky, looking for supernovae. These are standard brightness that you can infer distances with.

And the universe isn't slowing down. It's accelerating. The universe is accelerating in its expansion.

Okay, so the answer is, I don't know. That's his answer. I don't know.

And do you know why? Nobody knows why. Nobody knows why.

Right.

And you'll hear the expression nowadays, dark energy, dark matter, which are mathematical ideas that seem to reckon well with what seems to be the gravitational attraction of clusters of stars, galaxies, and their expansion.

And then, isn't it reasonable that whatever is out there causing the universe to expand is here also? And we just haven't figured out how to detect it.

Look, ideally, you should study your debate issues so well that you can answer any challenge that arises, particularly in cross-examination, okay? But sometimes there might be these moments where you have an unanswerable question from your particular position.

And so the answer literally is, I don't know. However, in those cases, I think it's very wise that you say something to the effect of, we don't know the answer to that. But, quickly add, however, my opponent has an even greater difficulty in answering this question because, and then you list your reasons.

You know, da-da-da-da-da. In that way, if your opponent gets the opportunity to answer the same question, they may not properly answer because you've put them on the defensive and they'll spend time and energy trying to answer your reasons instead of answering the question.

You see that? Okay, I think that's a better strategy. Alright, so Nye's answer here basically is, I don't know. But he forgot to challenge his opponent and land some blows in that sense. So let's find out what Ham does.

Mr. Ham, a response?

Bill, I just want to let you know that there actually is a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from. And the very first sentence in that book says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

And really that's the only thing that makes sense. It's the only thing that makes sense of why not just matter is here, where it came from, but why matter, when you look at it, we have information and language systems that build life, not just matter.

And where did that come from? Because matter can never produce information. Matter can never produce a language system. Languages only come from intelligence. Information only comes from information. The Bible tells us that the things we see, like in the book of Hebrews, are made from things that are unseen.

An infinite creator God who created the universe, created matter, the energy, space, mass, time, universe, and created the information for life. It's the only thing that makes logical sense.

Why would you bring the Bible into a debate that trades on scientific methodology? It's a mistake. Don't get me wrong, Christians, those of you getting angry with me, right? Especially you presuppositionalists out there, you're growling at me like a caged lion.

I'm not saying the Bible is illegitimate. I'm saying that the parameters of these kinds of debate trade on science. They trade on philosophy and empirical evidence. If Bill Nye accepted the Bible as a source of authority, then go ahead and use the Bible in your argumentation.

If he doesn't, what the heck are you doing bringing in the Bible and appealing to it? You can argue that we see empirically things that are best explained by Christianity, okay? But to simply appeal to the Bible as an answer, you also have to argue that the Bible is reliable in order for it to be used as evidence in support of your argument.

And look, if it went the other way, we would cry foul, right, as Christians. If Nye tried to talk about some form of science that we didn't recognize as reliable, we would dismiss it. That's why we go into a debate like this.

When you do, you need to agree on the same criteria in order to assess the validity of the arguments. And I guarantee you, the Bible is not one of those criteria in this debate. But Ham is just bringing it in and he's wasting opportunities to challenge his opponents.

All he's doing is he's talking to the Christians in the audience so they can giggle and laugh. Well, you know, there is a book that explains this. But here's the other thing. He kind of sprinkled in the right answer in the middle of all of that, right?

Matter can't produce information or language. Information only comes from intelligence. That's better. But then he goes right back to the Bible again. I mean, this is almost a wash. At least Nye didn't misstep.

He just forgot to challenge his opponent as an effective tactic. Ham, almost as an afterthought, said something good, but it was mostly wrapped up in this awful, awful strategy. Again, I'd say slight advantage to Nye at this point.

A new question for you, Mr. Nye.

Let's do it.

How did consciousness come from matter?

Don't know. This is a great mystery.

Okay, watch this, right? Don't know, right? Honest answer. That's good. But does he challenge his opponent on this one, right? He missed his opportunity previously. Does he challenge his opponent here?

Let's find out.

I used to embrace a joke about dogs. I mean, who doesn't? And you can say, this guy remarked, I've never seen a dog paralyzed by self-doubt. Actually, I have. Furthermore, the thing that we celebrate, there are three sundials on the planet Mars that bear an inscription to the future.

To those who visit here, we wish a safe journey and the joy of discovery. It's inherently optimistic about the future of humankind, that we will one day walk on Mars. But the joy of discovery, that's what drives us.

The joy of finding out what's going on. So we don't know where consciousness comes from, but we want to find out. Furthermore, I'll tell you, it's deep within us. I claim that I have spent time with dogs that have had the joy of discovery.

It's way inside us. We have one ancestor, as near as we can figure. And I remind you, taxpayers and voters that might be watching, if we do not embrace the process of science, I mean, in the mainstream, we will fall behind economically.

This is a point I can't say enough.

Mr. Hamm, a one-minute response.

Bill, I do want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness came from.

See, appeal to the Bible, get the Christians to laugh in the room, mission accomplished. Except if you're actually trying to win a debate, this is a failure.

That book, the one who created us, said that he made man in his image and he breathed into man and he became a living being. And so the Bible does document that. That's where consciousness came from, that God gave it to us.

There he goes again. See my previous response. Advantage goes to Nye on this one.

This is a simple question, I suppose, but one that actually is fairly profound for all of us in our lives. What, if anything, would ever change your mind?

Well, the answer to that question is evidence. I'm a Christian. And as a Christian, I can't prove it to you. But God has definitely shown me very clearly through his word and shown himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is the word of God. I admit that that's where I start from. I can challenge people that you can go and test that. You can make predictions based on that. You can check the prophecies in the Bible.

You can check the statements in Genesis. You can check that. And I did a little bit of that tonight. And I can't ultimately prove that to you. All I can do is to say to someone, look, if the Bible really is what it claims to be, if it really is the word of God and that's what it claims, then check it out.

And the Bible says if you come to God believing that he is, he'll reveal himself to you. And you will know. As Christians, we can say we know. And so as far as the word of God is concerned, no. No one's ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true.

Imagine hearing from a skeptic or an atheist, what would change your mind about all of this? And they say, well, you know, I'm an atheist, and I can't prove it to you. But you can test it. But I can't prove it.

And you'll never convince me that it's false.

It's, what?

Here's the answer. The evidence. What would change your mind? Good evidence. Why did Jesus perform miracles, ladies and gentlemen? Why were there eyewitness testimonies to his resurrection? Because the evidence does confirm the claims of Christianity.

And if there is no evidence confirming, and there's evidence that disconfirms Christianity, that's how you should change your mind.

Mr. Knight?

We would just need one piece of evidence.

There it is! There it is.

One piece of evidence. There it is. It seems to me, watching these guys, they don't really have a background in debate, and that's totally fine. And I applaud anybody who wants to get up in front of lots and lots of people and cameras and microphones and, you know, and go at it, not having a background in that kind of a thing, because one of the biggest fears that people have is, you know, public speaking, obviously.

But Ken Ham really floundered. His strategies going into the debate were insufficient to withstand his opponent. Bill Nye clearly had the upper hand here. It doesn't mean that Ken Ham is wrong, or that Bill Nye is correct.

It just means that Nye clearly won this debate, as I'm looking at this particular segment. Now, here's the thing. What do you guys think? Have you watched the full debate? Who really won, in your opinion?

Let me know in the comments below. Also, again, would you like to see another Debate Teacher Reacts? Make sure you like the videos, and tell me who you want to see me critique. We'll do all of that next time.

I hope this kind of exercise helps you to think more critically and wrestle with various arguments from both sides. But I'll go ahead and say bye for now, and see you next time.