Talking past each other: Bill Nye vs. creationist Ken Ham on evolution

folks ,we can talk 2 each in a Respectful way !  :o

Ars reports on the debate over whether creation is viable as science.

by Eric Bangeman - Feb 5 2014, http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/talking-past-each-other-bill-nye-vs-creationist-ken-ham-on-evolution/

• Life Sciences

Bill Nye and Ken Ham square off at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Eric Bangeman / Ars Technica

PETERSBURG, KENTUCKY—A brightly lit auditorium was packed with young adults wearing bow-ties, young-Earth creationists, and a gaggle of media there to maybe see sparks fly. The sparks could have been generated by Ken Ham, president/CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, but instead, they mostly talked past each other for two-and-a-half hours on a snowy Kentucky night. The topic was one near and dear to both debate participants: the nature of acceptable scientific discourse. More specifically, they attempted to answer the question “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”
Ham and Nye both led off with short five-minute statements followed by 30-minute presentations punctuated by PowerPoint slides, video clips, and graphics intended to buttress their cases. Unsurprisingly, Ham’s starting point was Genesis, and he kept coming back to the assertion that God’s word as revealed in the first two chapters of Genesis is the definitive authority. All scientific inquiry should therefore begin with and proceed from there.
To make the case that science and creationism were compatible, he showed short video clips of scientists from around the world who believed in a literal six days of creation. "People are going to see what we really believe tonight," Ham promised. "I believe science has been hijacked by secularists" who seem to indoctrinate folks in the "religion of naturalism."
Nye countered with arguments from the fossil record, ice cores taken from Greenland, and tree rings to demonstrate that a literal reading of Genesis is unable to account for many scientific discoveries. Given that some of the core samples show over 680,000 annual progressions through the four seasons, Nye pointed that we'd have to experience well over a hundred winter-summer cycles every year to account for that number. "Wouldn't someone have noticed that?" he asked.

Ken Ham argues for two types of science: "observational" and "historical."

Eric Bangeman / Ars Technica

One of the points of contention throughout the debate was the term science. Ham made the distinction between "historical science" and "observed science." The former relates to things that happened in the past, things that cannot be directly observed. In contrast, observed science is the present, that which can be tested, observed, and repeated. Nye rejected those distinctions. He kept returning to the point that there is only one kind of science, and it's all observational. "On CSI, there is no distinction between observational and experimental science."
How does one deal with the existence of the Grand Canyon and the layers of sediment and fossils? For Ham, we can't really know for sure, since we weren't there to observe what happened. "None of us saw the sandstone being laid down." During his presentation, Nye countered Ham by pointing out that, if the young earth creation arguments were correct, we'd see "churning and bubbling and writhing" in the Grand Canyon fossil record. "You never, ever, find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one," he says. "You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to the higher one."
After the 30-minute presentations, both participants were given five minutes for rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. During that time, both Ham and Nye attempted to poke holes in the other's arguments. For Ham, that meant being critical of various dating methods used by scientists. Other than the Bible, "there is no accurate dating method," Ham argued emphatically. "None." Nye again focused on Ham's distinction between "historical" and "observable" science, a distinction that does not exist for anyone other than "Ken Ham and his followers." He also repeatedly challenged Ham to offer some examples of predictive science based on young-Earth creation.
Some of the most interesting exchanges came during the Q&A session. Moderator Tom Foreman of CNN had a list of audience-submitted questions directed at either Nye or Ham, with the other given a chance to respond. When asked about what existed before the Big Bang, Nye began his answer with "I don't know."
"This is the great mystery—you've hit the nail on the head," he replied passionately. "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."
For Ham, the answer is simple. "There's a book out there that tells us where matter came from," he explained. "It's the only thing that makes logical sense."
Both Ham and Nye made a case for science education in the public schools, but, as one might expect, they each came at it from a different perspective. Ham wants creation science to be a part of the curriculum in part because it encourages critical thinking. For Nye, the US needs to embrace science in the curriculum in order to be competitive. "If we stop driving forward, looking for the next answer, we in the United States will be out-competed by other countries, other economies."
The debate ended as it began, with the two adversaries shaking hands and then walking off the dais. Were hearts touched and minds changed? Probably not. But two men with starkly different beliefs and viewpoints made their case stridently and respectfully before a rapt, well-behaved audience. Today, that counts for something.

Ken Ham's organization later posted video of the debate to YouTube.

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD

Stay tuned for an in-depth feature on the debate and its historical antecedents. We're also going to head over to the Creation Museum on Wednesday morning to take in the sights.