Oh, hi kids! I have an incredible message for you.
Hey, can someone take Germa back to the petting zoo?
Wow! That looks like fun.
Now, where was I? Oh, yes.
In 2014, kids 12 and under come free.
Hey! Shouldn't the comets be in the Planetarium?
For the entire year, kids 12 and under come free.
Hey, T-Rex! You'd better get back to the dinosaur den.
As you can see, it's a very exciting place.
Now tell your parents!
Kids 12 and under free in 2014 when accompanied by a paying adult.
We hope to see you soon!
Good evening. I'm pleased to welcome you to Legacy Hall
of the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky
in the metropolitan area of Cincinnati.
I'm Tom Foreman from CNN and I'm pleased to be tonight's
moderator for this Evolution versus Creation debate.
This is a very old question! Where did we come from?
My answer is from Washington this morning by airplane.
(laughter from audience)
But there is a much more profound, longer answer
that people have sought after for a long time.
So tonight's question to be debated is the following:
Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?
Our welcome extends to hundreds of thousands of people
who are watching on the internet at debatelive.org.
We're glad you have joined us.
Of course, your auditorium here,
all of the folks who've joined us as well.
We're joined by 70 media representatives from many
of the world's great news organizations.
We're glad to have them here as well.
And now let's welcome our debaters: Mr. Bill Nye and Mr. Ken Ham.
(audience applauds)
We had a coin toss earlier to determine
who would go first of these two men.
The only thing missing was Joe Namath in a fur coat.
But it went very well. Mr. Ham won the coin toss
and he opted to speak first. But first, let me tell you
a little bit about both of these gentlemen.
Mr. Nye's website describes him as a scientist,
engineer, comedian, author, and inventor.
Mr Nye, as you may know, produced a number of award-winning TV shows,
including a program he became so well-known for:
Bill Nye the Science Guy.
While working on the Science Guy show, Mr. Nye won
seven national Emmy awards for writing, performing,
and producing the show. Won 18 Emmys in five years!
In between creating the shows, he wrote five kids books about science,
including his latest title, Bill Nye's Great Big Book of Tiny Germs.
Billy Nye is the host of three television series:
his program, "The 100 Greatest Discoveries"--
it airs on the Science Channel. "The Eyes of Nye"--
airs on PBS stations across the country. He frequenly appears
on interview programs to discuss a variety of science topics.
Mr. Nye serves as Executive Director of the Planetary Society,
the world's largest space interest group.
He is a graduate of Cornell, with a Bachelors
of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Mr. Ken Ham is the president and co-founder of Answers in Genesis,
a bible-defending organization that upholds the authority
of the scriptures from the very first verse.
Mr. Ham is the man behind the popular, high-tech
Creation Museum, where we're holding this debate.
The museum has had 2 million visitors in six years
and has attracted much of the world's media.
The Answers in Genesis website, as well, trafficked
with 2 million visitors alone last month. Mr. Ham is also
a best-selling author, a much in-demand speaker,
and the host of a daily radio feature carried on 700 plus stations.
This is his second public debate on Evolution and Creation.
The first was at Harvard, in the 1990s.
Mr. Ham is a native of Australia. He earned
a Bachelors degree in Applied Science, with an emphasis in
Environmental Biology, from the Queensland's Institute of Technology,
as well as a Diploma of Education at the University
of Queensland in Brisbon, Australia.
And now...Mr. Ham, you opted to go first, so you will
be first with your five minute opening statement.
Well, good evening. I know that not everyone watching
this debate will necessarily agree with what I have to say,
but I'm an Aussie and live over here in America
and they tell me I have an accent and so it doesn't matter
what I say, some people tell me. We just like to hear you saying it. (laughter)
So...um...I hope you enjoy me saying it anyway.
Well, the debate topic is this: Is Creation
a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?
You know, when this was first announced on the internet,
there were lots of statements-- like this one
from the Richard Dawkins Foundation.
"Scientists should not debate Creationists. Period."
And this one from one of the Discovery.com websites.
"Should Scientists Debate Creationists?"
You know, right here I believe there's a gross misrepresentation
in our culture. We're seeing people being indoctrinated
to believe that Creationists can't be Scientists.
I believe it's all a part of secularists hi-jacking the word "Science".
I want you to meet a modern-day scientist who's a Biblical Creationist.
My name is Stuart Burgess.
I'm a professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University in the U.K.
I have published over 130 scientific papers on
the science of design in Engineering and Biological systems.
From my research work, I have found that the scientific evidence
fully supports Creationism as the best explanation to origins.
I've also designed major parts of spacecrafts,
launched by ESA and NASA.
So here's a biblical Creationist,
who's a scientist, who's also an inventor.
And I want young people to understand that.
You know, the problem, I believe, is this: we need to define terms correctly.
We need to define Creation/Evolution in regard to origins
and we need to define science. And in this opening statement,
I want to concentrate on dealing with the word "science".
I believe the word "science" has been hijacked by secularists.
Now, what is science?
Well, the origin of the word comes from the Classical Latin "scientia",
which means "to know". And if you look up a dictionary,
it'll say science means "the state of knowing, knowledge".
But there's different types of knowledge and I believe
this is where the confusion lies.
There's experimental or observational sciences, as we call it.
That's using the scientific method, observation,
measurement, experiment, testing. That's what produces
our technology, computers, spacecraft, jet planes,
smoke detectors, looking at DNA, antibiotics, medicines and vaccines.
You see, all scientists, whether Creationists or Evolutionists,
actually have the same observational or experimental science.
And it doesn't matter whether you're a Creationist or an Evolutionist,
you can be a great scientist.
For instance, here's an atheist, who is a great scientist--
Craig Venter, one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome.
Or Dr. Raymond Damadian. He is a man who invented
the MRI scan and revolutionized medicine. He's a biblical Creationist.
But I want us to also understand molecules-to-man
evolution belief has nothing to do with developing technology.
You see, when we're talking about origins, we're talking about the past.
We're talking about our origins. We weren't there.
You can't observe that, whether it's molecules-to-man evolution,
or whether it's a creation account.
I mean, you're talking about the past.
We'd like to call that Origins or Historical Science,
knowledge concerning the past. Here at the Creation Museum,
we make no apology about the fact that our Origins or Historical science
actually is based upon the biblical account of origins.
Now, when you research science textbooks being used
in public schools, what we found is this:
by and large, the Origins or Historical Science
is based upon man's ideas about the past--for instance, the ideas of Darwin.
And our research has found that public school textbooks
are using the same word "science" for Observational Science
and Historical Science. They arbitrarily define science
as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural.
They present molecules-to-man evolution as fact.
They are imposing, I believe, the religion
of naturalism or atheism on generations of students.
You see, I assert that the word "science" has been hijacked
by secularists in teaching evolution to force the religion
of naturalism on generations of kids.
Secular evolutionists teach that all life developed
by natural processes from some primordial form.
That man is just an evolved animal, which has great bearing
on how we view life and death.
For instance, as Bill states, "It's very hard to accept,
for many of us, that when you die, it's over."
But, you see, the Bible gives a totally different account of origins,
of who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and our future.
That through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin.
But that God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son.
Whoever believes in Him should not perish and have everlasting life.
So is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?
I say the creation/evolution debate is a conflict
between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts
of origins or science beliefs and creation
is the only viable model of historical science confirmed
by observational science in today's modern scientific era.
And that is time. I had the unenviable job of being the time-keeper here.
So I'm like the referee in football that you don't like,
but I will periodically, if either one of our debaters
runs over on anything, I will stop them in the name of keeping it fair for all.
Uh, Mr. Ham, thank you for your comments. Now it's Mr. Nye's
turn for a five minute opening statement. Mr. Nye.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.
I very much appreciate you including me in your, uh, facility here.
Now, looking around the room I think I see just one bow tie.
Is that right? Just one. And I'm telling you, once you try it--
oh, there's yes, two! That's great. I started wearing bow ties
when I was young, in high school.
My father showed me how. His father showed him.
And there's a story associated with this, which I find remarkable.
My grandfather was in the rotary, and he attended
a convention in Philadelphia, and even in those days,
at the turn of the last century, people rented tuxedos.
And the tuxedo came with a bow tie--untied bow tie.
So he didn't know how to tie it.
So...wasn't sure what to do, but he just took a chance.
He went to the hotel room next door, knocked on the door,
"Excuse me? Can you help me tie my tie?"
And the guy said, "Sure. Lie down on the bed."
So...my grandfather wanted to have the tie on,
wasn't sure what he was getting into, so he's said
to have lain on the bed and the guy tied a perfect bow tie knot and,
quite reasonably, my grandfather said,
"Thank you. Why'd I have to lie down on the bed?"
The guy said, "I'm an undertaker."
(audience laughs)
"It's the only way I know how to do it."
Now that story was presented to me as a true story.
It may or may not be. But it gives you something to think about.
And it's certainly something to remember.
So, here tonight, we're gonna have two stories
and we can compare Mr. Ham's story to the story
from what I will call the outside, from mainstream science.
The question tonight is: Does Ken Ham's Creation Model hold up?
Is it "viable"?
So let me ask you all: what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight?
That's right, you'd be home watching CSI.
CSI Petersburg. Is that coming--I think it's coming.
And on CSI, there is no distinction made between
historical science and observational science.
These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham.
We don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here.
Natural laws that applied in the past apply now.
That's why they're natural laws. That's why we embrace them.
That's how we made all these discoveries
that enabled all this remarkable technology.
So CSI is a fictional show, but it's based absolutely
on real people doing real work.
When you go to a crime scene and find evidence,
you have clues about the past. And you trust those clues
and you embrace them and you move forward to convict somebody.
Mr. Ham and his followers have this remarkable view
of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we observe in nature.
A 500 foot wooden boat, eight zookeepers for 14,000 individual animals,
every land plant in the world underwater for a full year?
I ask us all: is that really reasonable?
You'll hear a lot about the Grand Canyon, I imagine, also,
which is a remarkable place and it has fossils.
And the fossils in the Grand Canyon are found in layers.
There's not a single place in the Grand Canyon
where the fossils of one type of animal cross over
into the fossils of another. In other words,
when there was a big flood on the earth, you would expect
drowning animals to swim up to a higher level.
Not any one of them did. Not a single one.
If you could find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world.
Now, I just wanna remind us all:
there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious,
who get enriched, who have a wonderful sense of community from their religion.
They worship together, they eat together, they live
in their communities and enjoy each others company. Billions of people.
But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view
that the earth is somehow only 6,000 years old. That is unique.
And here's my concern: what keeps the United States ahead,
what makes the United States a world leader, is our technology,
our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science,
eschew the process and try to divide science
into observational science and historic science,
we are not gonna move forward. We will not embrace natural laws.
We will not make discoveries. We will not invent and innovate and stay ahead.
So if you ask me if Ken Ham's Creation model is viable, I say no.
It is absolutely not viable. So stay with us over the next period
and you can compare my evidence to his. Thank you all very much.
(audience applauds)
(moderator) All right.
Very nice start by both of our debaters here.
And now each of one will offer a thirty minute,
illustrated presentation to fully offer their case for us to consider.
Mr. Ham, you're up.
Well, the debate topic was "Is creation a viable model
of origins in today's modern scientific era?"
And I made the statement at the end of my opening statement:
creation is the only viable model of historical science
confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era.
And I said what we need to be doing is actually defining
our terms and, particularly three terms: science, creation, and evolution.
Now, I discussed the meaning of the word "science"
and what is meant by experimental and observational science briefly.
And that both Creationists and Evolutionists
can be great scientists, for instance. I mentioned Craig Venter, a biologist.
He's an atheist and he's a great scientist.
He was one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome.
I also mentioned Dr. Raymond Damadian, who actually invented the MRI scanner.
I want you to meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and an inventor.
Hi, my name is Dr. Raymond Damadian.
I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist and believe that God
created the world in six 24 hour days,
just as recorded in the book of Genesis.
By God's grace and the devoted prayers of my Godly mother-in-law,
I invented the MRI scanner in 1969.
The idea that scientists who believe the earth
is 6,000 years old cannot do real science is simply wrong.
Well, he's most adamant about that.
And, actually, he revolutionized medicine! He's a biblical Creationist.
And I encourage children to follow people like that, make them their heroes.
Let me introduce you to another biblical Creation Scientist.
My name is Danny Faulkner.
I received my PhD in astronomy from Indiana University.
For 26 and a half years, I was a professor
at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster,
where I hold the rank of distinguished professor emeritus.
Upon my retirement from the university in January of 2013,
I joined the research staff at Answers in Genesis. I'm a stellar astronomer.
That means my primary interests is stars, but I'm particularly
interested in the study of eclipsing binary stars.
And I've published many articles in the astronomy literature,
places such as the the Astrophysical Journal,
the Astronomical Journal, and the Observatory.
There is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation.
I also mentioned Dr. Stuart Burgess,
professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University in England.
Now he invented and designed a double-action worm gear set
for the three hinges of the robotic arm on a very expensive satellite.
And if that had not worked, if that gear set had not worked,
that whole satellite would've been useless.
Yet, Dr. Burgess is a biblical Creationist. He believes, just as I believe.
Now, think about this for a moment.
A scientist like Dr. Burgess,
who believe in Creation, just as I do,
a small minority in this scientific world.
But let's see what he says about scientists believing in Creation.
I find that many of my colleagues in academia are sympathetic
to the creationist viewpoint, including biologists.
However, there are often afraid to speak out because of the criticisms
they would get from the media and atheists lobby.
Now, I agree. That's a real problem today.
We need to have freedom to be able to speak on these topics.
You know, I just want to say, by the way, that Creationists,
non-Christian scientists, I should say,
non-Christian scientists are really borrowing
from the Christian worldview anyway to carry out their experimental,
observational science. Think about it. When they're doing
observational science, using the scientific method,
they have to assume the laws of logic,
they have to assume the laws of nature,
they have to assume the uniformity of nature.
I mean, think about it. If the universe came about by natural processes,
where'd the laws of logic come from? Did they just pop into existence?
Are we in a stage now where we only have half-logic?
So, you see, I have a question for Bill Nye.
How do you account for the laws of logic and the laws of nature
from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God?
Now, in my opening statement I also discussed
a different type of science or knowledge, origins or historical science.
See again, there's a confusion here. There's a misunderstanding here.
People, by and large, have not been taught to look at
what you believe about the past as different to what you're observing in the present.
You don't observe the past directly.
Even when you think about the creation account.
I mean, we can't observe God creating.
We can't observe the creation of Adam and Eve. We admit that.
We're willing to admit our beliefs about the past.
But, see, what you see in the present is very different.
Even some public school textbooks actually sort of acknowledge
the difference between historical and observational science.
Here is an Earth Science textbook that's used in public schools.
And we read this. In contrast to physical geology,
the aim of historical geology is to understand Earth's long history.
Then they make this statement.
Historical geology--so we're talking historical science--
tries to establish a timeline of the vast number of physical
and biological changes that have occurred in the past.
We study physical geology before historical geology
because we first must understand how Earth works before we try to unravel its past.
In other words, we observe things in the present and then,
okay, we're assuming that that's always happened in the past
and we're gonna try and figure out how this happened.
See, there is a difference between what you observe
and what happened in the past. Let me illustrate it this way:
If Bill Nye and I went to the Grand Canyon,
we could agree that that's a Coconino sandstone in the Hermit shale.
There's the boundary. They're sitting one on top of the other.
We could agree on that. But you know what we would disagree on?
I mean, we could even analyse the minerals and agree on that.
But we would disagree on how long it took to get there.
But see, none of us saw the sandstone or the shale being laid down.
There's a supposed 10 million year gap there.
But I don't see a gap.
But that might be different to what Bill Nye would see.
But there's a difference between what you actually observe
directly and then your interpretation regarding the past.
When I was at the Goddard Space Center a number of years ago
I met Creationists and Evolutionists who were
both working on the Hubble telescope.
They agreed on how to build the Hubble telescope.
You know what they disagreed on? Well, they disagreed on
how to interpret the data the telescope obtained
in regard to the age of the universe.
And, you know, we could on and talk about lots
of other similar sorts of things. For instance,
I've heard Bill Nye talk about how a smoke detector works,
using the radioactive element Americium. And, you know what?
I totally agree with him on that. We agree how it works.
We agree how radioactivity enables that to work.
But if you're then gonna use radioactive elements
and talk about the age of the Earth,
you've got a problem cause you weren't there.
We gotta understand parent elements, daughter elements and so on.
We could agree whether you're Creationist or Evolutionist
on the technology to put the rover on Mars, but we're gonna
disagree on how to interpret the origin of Mars.
I mean, there are some people that believed it
was even a global flood on Mars, and there's no liquid water on Mars.
We're gonna disagree maybe on our interpretation of origins
and you can't prove either way because, not from
an observational science perspective, because we've only got the present.
Creationists and Evolutionists both work on medicines and vaccines.
You see? It doesn't matter whether you're a Creationist or an Evolutionist,
all scientists have the same experimental observational science.
So I have a question for Bill Nye: Can you name one piece
of technology that could only have been developed
starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution?
Now, here's another important fact.
Creationists and Evolutionists all have the same evidence.
Bill Nye and I have the same Grand Canyon. We don't disagree on that.
We all have the same fish fossils. This is one from the Creation Museum.
The same dinosaur skeleton, the same animals, the same humans,
the same DNA, the same radioactive decay elements that we see.
We have the same universe...actually, we all have the same evidences.
It's not the evidences that are different.
It's a battle over the same evidence in regard to how we interpret the past.
And you know why that is?
Cause it's really a battle over worldviews and starting points.
It's a battle over philosophical worldviews
and starting points, but the same evidence. Now, I admit,
my starting point is that God is the ultimate authority.
But if someone doesn't accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority.
And that's really the difference when it comes down to it.
You see, I've been emphasizing the difference
between historical origin science, knowledge about
the past when you weren't there,
and we need to understand that we weren't there.
Or experimental observational science, using
your five senses in the present, the scientific method,
what you can directly observe, test, repeat.
There's a big difference between those two.
And that's not what's being taught in our public schools
and that's why kids aren't being taught to think
critically and correctly about the origins issue.
But you know, it's also important to understand,
when talking about Creation and Evolution, both involve
historical science and observational science.
You see, the role of observational science is this:
it can be used to confirm or otherwise
one's historical science based on one's starting point.
Now, when you think about the debate topic and what I have
learned concerning creation, if our origins
or historical science based on the bible, the bible's account
of origins is true, then there should be predictions
from this that we can test, using observational science.
And there are. For instance, based on the bible,
we'd expect to find evidence concerning an intelligence,
confirming an intelligence produced life.
We'd expect to find evidence confirming after their kind.
The bible says God made kinds of animals and plants
after their kind, implying each kind produces it's own,
not that one kind changes into another.
You'd expect to find evidence confirming a global flood of Noah's day.
Evidence confirming one race of humans because we
all go back to Adam and Eve, biologically, that would mean there's one race.
Evidence confirming the Tower of Babel, that God gave different languages.
Evidence confirming a young universe.
Now, I can't go through all of those, but a couple of them we'll look at briefly.
After their kind, evidence confirming that--
in the Creation Museum, we have a display featuring replicas,
actually, of Darwin's finches. They're called Darwin's finches.
Darwin collected finches from the Galapagos
and took them back to England and we see the different species,
the different beak sizes here. And, you know,
from the specimens Darwin obtained in the Galapagos,
he actually pondered these things and how do you explain this.
And in his notes, actually, he came up with this diagram here, a tree.
And he actually said, "I think." So he was talking about
different species and maybe those species came from some common ancestor,
but, actually, when it comes to finches, we actually would agree,
as Creationists, that different finch species came from a common ancestor, but a finch.
That's what they would have to come from.
And see, Darwin wasn't just thinking about species.
Darwin had a much bigger picture in mind.
When you look at the Origins of Species and read that book,
you'll find he made this statement: from such low and intermediate form,
both animals and plants may have been developed;
and, if we admit this, we must likewise admit that
all organic beings which have ever lived on this Earth
may be descended from some one primordial form.
So he had in mind what we today know as an evolutionary tree of life,
that all life has arisen from some primordial form.
Now, when you consider the classifications system,
kingdom phylum class or the family genus species,
we would say, as Creationists, we have many creation scientists
that research this and, for lots of reasons,
I would say, the kind in Genesis 1 is really more at
the family level of classification. For instance, there's one dog kind.
There's one cat kind. Even though you have different
generative species, that would mean, by the way,
you didn't need anywhere near the number of animals
on the ark as people think.
You wouldn't need all the species of dogs, just two.
Not all the species of cats--just two.
And, you see, based on the biblical account there in Genesis One,
Creationists have drawn up what they believe is a creation origin.
In other words, they're saying, "Look. There's great variation
in the genetics of dogs and finches and so on."
And so, over time, particularly after Noah's flood,
you'd expect if there were two dogs, for instance,
you could end up with different species of dogs because
there's an incredible amount of variability in the genes of any creature.
And so you'd expect these different species up here, but there's limits.
Dogs will always be dogs, finches will always be finches.
Now, as a Creationist, I maintain that observational science
actually confirms this model, based on the bible.
For instance, take dogs. Okay?
In a scientific paper dated January 2014--that's this year--
scientists working at the University of California stated this:
We provide several lines of evidence supporting
a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models
in which dog lineages arise separately
from geographically distinct wolf populations.
And they put this diagram in the paper.
By the way, that diagram is very, very similar
to this diagram that Creationists proposed based upon
the creation account in Genesis. In other words,
you have a common dog ancestor that gives rise
to the different species of dogs, and that's exactly
what we're saying here. Now, in the Creation Museum,
we actually show the finches here and you see the finches
with their different beaks, beside dogs skulls, different species of dogs.
By the way, there's more variation in the dog skeleton
here than there are in these finches. Yet, the dogs,
wow, that's never used as an example of evolution,
but the finches are, particularly in the public school textbooks.
Students are taught, "Ah! See the changes that are occurring here?"
And here's another problem that we've got.
Not only has the word "science" been hijacked by secularists,
I believe the word "evolution" has been hijacked by secularists.
The word "evolution" has been hijacked using what I call a bait and switch.
Let me explain to you.
The word "evolution" is being used in public school textbooks,
and we often see it in documentaries and so on,
is used for observable changes that we would agree with,
and then used for unobservable changes, such as molecules-to-man.
Let me explain to you what's really going on because
I was a science teacher in the public schools
and I know what the students were taught and I checked
the public school textbooks anyway to know what they're taught.
See, students are taught today, look, there's all
these different animals, plants, but they're all part
of this great, big tree of life that goes back to some primordial form.
And, look, we see changes. Changes in finches,
changes in dogs and so on. Now, we don't deny the changes.
You see that. You see different species of finches, different species of dogs.
But then they put it all together in this evolutionary tree--
but that's what you don't observe. You don't observe that.
That's belief there. That's the historical science
that I would say is wrong. But, you know, what you do observe,
you do observe different species of dogs, different species of finches,
but then there are limits. You don't see one kind changing into another.
Actually, we're told that if you teach creation
in the public schools as teaching religion,
if you teach evolution as science, I'm gonna say, "Wait a minute!"
Actually, the creation model here, based upon the Bible,
observational science confirms this. This is what you're observe!
You don't observe this tree.
Actually, it's the public school textbooks that are teaching a belief,
imposing it on students, and they need to be teaching them
observational science to understand the reality of what's happening.
Now, what we found is that public school textbooks present
the evolutionary "tree" as science, but reject the creation "orchard" as religion.
But observational science confirms the creation orchard--
so public school textbooks are rejecting observational science
and imposing a naturalistic religion on students.
The word "evolution" has been hijacked using a bait and switch
to indoctrinate students to accept evolutionary belief
as observational science.
Let me introduce you to another scientist, Richard Lenski,
from Michigan State University. He's a great scientist,
he's known for culturing e-coli in the lab...
and he found there was some e-coli that actually seemed
to develop the ability to grow on cistrate on substrate.
But Richard Lenski is here, mentioned in this book,
and it's called "Evolution in the Lab".
So the ability to grow on citrate is said to be evolution.
And there are those that say, "Hey! This is against the Creationist."
For instance, Jerry Coin from University of Chicago says,
"Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye
for anti-evolutionists."
He says, "The thing I like most is it says you can get
these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events."
But is it a poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists?
Is it really seeing complex traits evolving?
What does it mean that some of these bacteria are able to grow on citrate?
Let me introduce you to another biblical Creationist, who is a scientist.
Hi, my name's Dr. Andrew Fabich.
I got my PhD from University of Oklahoma in Microbiology.
I teach at Liberty University and I do research on e-coli in the intestine.
I've published it in secular journals from the American Society for Microbiology,
including infection immunity and applied environmental microbiology
as well as several others.
My work has been cited even in the past year in the journals Nature,
Science Translational Medicine, Public Library of Science,
Public Library of Science Genetics. It's cited regularly
in those journals and while I was taught nothing but evolution,
I don't accept that position.
I do my research from a creation perspective.
When I look at the evidence that people cite as e-coli,
supposedly, evolving over 30 years, over 30,000 generations in the lab,
and people say that it is now able to grow on citrate,
I don't deny that it grows on citrate,
but it's not any kind of new information.
The information's already there and it's just a switch
that gets turned on and off and that's what they reported in there.
There's nothing new.
See, students need to be told what's really going on here.
Certainly there's change, but it's not change necessary for molecules-to-man.
Now, we could look at other predictions.
What about evidence confirming one race?
Well, when we look at the human population we see lots of differences.
But based on Darwin's ideas of human evolution,
as presented in The Descent of Man, I mean,
Darwin did teach in The Descent of Man there were
lower races and higher races.
Would you believe, that back in the 1900s, one of the most
popular biology textbooks used in the public schools in America taught this:
At the present time there exists upon Earth
five races or varieties of man...and finally,
the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented
by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
Can you imagine if that was in the public schools today?
And, yet, that's what was taught, but it was based on
Darwin's ideas that are wrong. You have a wrong foundation.
You're gonna have a wrong worldview.
Now, had they started from the Bible, and from
the creation account in the Bible, what does it teach?
Well, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve.
We go through the Tower of Babel, different languages,
so different people groups formed distinct characteristics.
But we'd expect, we'd say, you know what,
that means there's biologically only one race of humans.
Well, I mentioned Dr. Venter before.
And he was a researcher with the human genome project.
And you'll remember, in the year 2000, this was headline news,
and what we read was this: they had put together
a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome
and unanimously declared, there is only one race - the human race.
Wow! Who would have guessed?
But you see there we have observational science
confirming the Creation account,
not confirming at all Darwin's ideas.
Now, there's much more that can be said
on each of these topics.
Obviously, you can't do that in a short time like this.
And you could do a lot more research.
I suggest you visit our website at Answers in Genesis
for a lot more information.
So, the debate topic: Is creation a viable model
of origins in today's scientific era?
I said, we need to define the terms,
and particularly, the term science
and the term evolution. And I believe we need
to understand how they are being used to impose
an anti-God religion on generations of unsuspecting students.
You see, I keep emphasizing we do need to
understand the difference between experimental or
observational science and historical science.
And you know what?
The secularists don't like me doing this
because they don't want to admit
that there's a belief aspect to what they're saying.
And there is. And they can't get away from it.
Let me illustrate this with a statement from Bill Nye.
"You can show the Earth is not flat.
You can show the Earth is not 10,000 years old."
By the way, I agree. You can show the Earth is not flat.
There's a video from the Galileo spacecraft showing
the Earth, and speeded up of course, but spinning.
You can see it's a sphere. You can observe that.
You can't observe the age of the Earth.
You don't see that. You see again, I emphasize,
there's a big difference between historical science,
talking about the past, and observational science,
talking about the present.
And I believe what's happening is this, that students are being
indoctrinated by the confusion of terms:
the hijacking of the word science and the hijacking
of the word evolution in a bait-and-switch.
Let me illustrate further with this video clip.
Because here I assert that Bill Nye is equating
observational science with historical science.
And I also say it's not a mystery when you understand the difference.
Howie, people with these deeply held religious beliefs,
they embrace that whole literal interpretation
of the Bible as written in English, as a worldview.
And, at the same time, they accept aspirin,
antibiotic drugs, airplanes, but they're able
to hold these two worldviews. And this is a mystery.
Actually, I suggest to you it's not a mystery.
You see, when I'm talking about antibiotics,
aspirin, smoke detectors, jet planes,
that's Ken Ham the Observational Science Bloke.
I'm an Australian. We call guy's "blokes", okay?
But when you're talking about creation and thousands of years
of the age of the Earth,
that's Ken Ham the Historical Science Bloke.
I'm willing to admit that.
Now, when Bill Nye's talking about aspirin,
antibiotics, jet planes, smoke detectors,
he does a great job at that.
I used to enjoy watching him on TV too.
That's Bill Nye the Observational Science Guy.
But when he's talking about evolution and millions of years,
I'm challenging him that that's Bill Nye the Historical Science Guy.
And I challenge the evolutionist to admit the belief
aspects of their particular worldview.
Now, at the Creation Museum, we're only too willing
to admit our beliefs based upon the Bible,
but we also teach people the difference between
beliefs and what one can actually observe
and experiment with in the present.
I believe we're teaching people to think critically
and to think in the right terms about science.
I believe it's the creationists that should be
educating the kids out there because we're teaching
them the right way to think. You know, we admit it.
Our origins of historical science is based upon the Bible,
but I'm just challenging evolutionists to admit
the belief aspects of evolution
and be upfront about the difference here.
As I said, I'm only too willing to admit
my historical science based on the Bible.
And let me further go on to define the term "creation" as we use it.
By creation, we mean, here at Answers in Genesis
and the Creation Museum, we mean the account based on the Bible.
Yes, I take Genesis as literal history, as Jesus did.
And, here at the Creation Museum, we walk people through that history.
We walk them through creation, the perfect creation.
That God made Adam and Eve, land animal kinds, sea-creatures and so on.
And then sin and death entered the world.
There was no death before sin.
That means how can you have billions of dead things before man sinned?
And then, the catastrophe of Noah's flood. If there was a global flood,
you'd expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.
Had to say that because a lot of our supporters would want me to.
And what do you find?--Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.
Confusion, the tower of Babel. God gave different languages so you get different people groups.
So this is the geological, astronomical, anthropological, biological history as recorded in the Bible.
So this is concerning what happened in the past that explains the present.
And then, of course, that God's Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the God-Man
to die on the cross, be raised from the dead. And one day there's going to be
a new heavens and a new earth to come. And, you know, not only
is this an understanding of history to explain the
geology, biology, astronomy, and so on to connect the present to the past.
But it's also a foundation for our whole world view.
For instance, in Matthew 19, when Jesus was asked about marriage, he said,
"Have you not read He who made them at the beginning made them male and female?"
And said, "For this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife. And they'll be one flesh."
He quoted from Genesis as literal history--Genesis 1 and 2. God invented marriage, by the way.
That's where marriage comes from. And it's to be a man and a woman.
And not only marriage. Ultimately, every single Biblical doctrine of theology
directly or indirectly, is founded in Genesis.
Why is there sin in the world? Genesis.
Why is there death? Genesis.
Why do we wear clothes? Genesis.
Why did Jesus die on the cross? Genesis.
It's a very important book. It's foundational to all Christian doctrine.
And you see, when we look at that, what I call the seven C's of History
that we walk people through here at the museum,
think about how it all connects together--a perfect creation.
It'll be perfect again in the future.
Sin and death--end of the world. That's why God's son died on the cross
to conquer death and offer a free gift of salvation.
The flood of Noah's day, a reminder that the flood was a
judgement because of man's wickedness but at the same time
a message of God's grace and salvation.
As Noah and his family had to go through a door to be saved,
so we need to go through a door to be saved.
Jesus Christ said, "I am the door. By me, if any man
enter in, he'll be saved. And we make no apology
about the fact that what we're on about is this:
"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and
believe in your heart God has raised him from the dead,
you'll be saved. Now, as soon as I said that,
see if people say, "See, if you allow creation in schools,
for instance, if you'll ask students to even hear about it,
ah, this is religion."
You know, let me illustrate this,
talking about a recent battle in Texas over textbooks
in the public school. A newspaper report said this:
"Textbook and classroom curriculum battles have long
raged in Texas pitting creationists - those who see
God's hand in the creation of the universe-
against academics..."
Stop right there. Notice creationists... academics.
Creationists can't be academics. Creationists can't be scientists.
See, it's the way things are worded out there.
It's an indoctrination that's going on.
We worry about religious and political ideology
trumping scientific fact. Wait a minute.
What do I mean by science? You're talking about
what you observe, or are you talking about your beliefs about the past?
Now, Kathy Miller is the president of the Texas Freedom Network and
she has vocally spoken out. She's spoken out about this textbook battle there in Texas.
And the mission statement of the organization she's president of says, "The Texas Freedom Network
advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties
to counter the religious right." Religious freedom... individual liberties. Hmm.
And then she makes this statement: "Science education..." What does she mean by science?
"should be based on mainstream science education, not on personal idealogical beliefs
of unqualified reviewers." Wait a minute. They want religious liberty and not personal
ideological beliefs? I assert this: public school textbooks are using the same word "science"
for observational and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism
and outlaw the supernatural. They present molecules-to-man evolution as as fact.
And they are imposing the religion of naturalism on generations of students.
They're imposing their ideology on the students
and everything's explained by natural processes.
That is a religion. What do you mean by religious liberty?
They tolerate their religion.
See, the battle is really about authority.
It's more than just science or evolution or creation.
It's about who is the authority in this world, man or God?
If you start with naturalism, then what about morals?
Who decides right and wrong? Well, it's subjective.
Marriage? Well, whatever you want it to be.
Get rid of old people. I mean, why not?
They're just animals, they're costing us a lot of money.
Abortion. Get rid of spare cats, get rid of spare kids. We're all animals.
But if you start from God's word, there are moral absolutes.
God decides right and wrong. Marriage--one man and one woman.
Sanctity of life--we care for old people. They're made in the image of God.
Life begins at fertilization, so abortion is killing a human being.
We do see the collapse of Christian morality
in our culture and increasing moral relativism
because generations of kids are being taught the religion
of naturalism and that the Bible can't be trusted.
And so, again, I say creation is the only viable model
of historical science confirmed by observational science
in today's modern scientific era. You know what?
I'm a science teacher. I want to see kids taught science.
I love science. I want to see more (inaudible) in the world.
You know, if we teach them the whole universe
is a result of natural processes and not designed
by a creative God, they might be looking in the wrong places
or have the wrong idea when they're looking
at the creation in regard to how you develop technology
because if they look at it as just random processes,
that could totally influence the way they think.
If they understand it was a perfect world marred by sin,
that could have a great affect on how they then look
for overcoming diseases and problems in the world.
I want children to be taught the right foundation,
that there's a God who created them, who loves them,
who died on the cross for them and that they're special.
They're made in the image of God.
(moderator) There you go. Thank you, Mr. Ham.
-We can applaud Mr. Ham's presentation.
-(audience applauds)
And, you know, it did occur to me when you had
my old friend Larry King up there, you could've just asked him.
He's been around a long time. And he's a smart guy!
He could probably answer for all of us. Now, let's all be
attentive to Mr. Nye as he gives us his 30 minute presentation.
Thank you very much and, Mr. Ham, I learned something.
Thank you. But let's take it back around to question at hand:
does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Is it viable?
So, for me, of course...well...take a look.
We're here in Kentucky on layer upon layer upon layer of limestone.
I stopped at the side of the road today and picked up
just a piece of limestone. It has a fossil right there.
Now, in these many, many layers, in this vicinity of Kentucky,
there are coral animal--fossils, Zooxanthella--
and when you look at it closely,
you can see that they lived their entire lives.
They lived typically 20 years, sometimes more than that
when the water conditions are correct.
And so we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life.
How could those animals have lived their entire life,
and formed these layers, in just 4,000 years?
There isn't enough time since Mr. Ham's flood
for this limestone that we're standing on to come into existence.
My scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland,
the Arctic, they go to Antarctica, and they drill
into the ice with hollow drill bits. It's not that extraordinary.
Many of you have probably done it yourselves, drilling other things.
Hole saws to put locks in doors, for example.
And we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods.
And these are made of snow and it's called "snow ice".
And snow ice forms over the winter as snowflakes fall
and are crushed down by subsequent layers. They're crushed together,
entrapping the little bubbles and the little bubbles must
needs be ancient atmosphere. There's nobody running around
with a hypodermic needle, squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles.
And we find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers.
680,000 snow/winter/summer cycles.
How could it be that just 4,000 years ago all of this ice formed?
Let's just run some numbers.
This is some scenes from the lovely Antarctic.
Let's say we have 680,000 layers of snow ice
and 4,000 years since the Great Flood.
That would mean we'd need 170 winter-summer cycles
every year, for the last 4,000 years.
I mean, wouldn't someone have noticed that? Wow!
Wouldn't someone have noticed that there's been
winter-summer-winter-summer 170 times one year?
If we go to California, we find enormous stands of bristlecone pines.
Some of them are over 6,000 years old. 6,800 years old.
There's a famous tree in Sweden, Old Tjikko, is 9,550 years old.
How could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood just 4,000 years ago?
You can try this yourself, everybody.
Get, I mean, I don't mean to be mean to trees,
but get a sapling and put it under water for a year.
It will not survive in general. Nor will its seeds.
They just won't make it. So how could these trees
be that old if the Earth is only 4,000 years old?
Now, when we go to the Grand Canyon--which is an astonishing place
and I recommend to everybody in the world to someday visit the Grand Canyon--
you find layer upon layer of ancient rocks.
And if there was this enormous flood that you speak of,
wouldn't there have been churning and bubbling and roiling?
How would these things have settled out?
Your claim that they settled out in an extraordinary short amount of time
is for me, not satisfactory. You can look at these rocks. You can look at rocks that are younger.
You can go to seashores where there's sand. This is what geologists on the outside do,
study the rate at which soil is deposited at the end of rivers and deltas.
And we can see that it takes a long, long time for sediments to turn to stone.
Also, in this picture you can see where one type of sediment has intruded on another type.
Now, if that was uniform, wouldn't we expect it all to be even, without intrusion?
Furthermore, you can find places in the Grand Canyon where you see an ancient riverbed on that side
going to an ancient riverbed on that side and the Colorado River has cut through it.
And by the way, if this great flood drained through the Grand Canyon,
wouldn't there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent?
How could we not have Grand Canyons everywhere if this water drained away in this extraordinary
short amount of time? Four thousand years? Now when you look at these layers carefully,
you find these beautiful fossils. And when I say beautiful, I am inspired by them. They are remarkable
because we are looking at the past. You find down low. You'll find what you might consider
is, uh, rudimentary sea animals. Up above you'll find the famous trilobytes.
Above that you might find some clams, some oysters. And above that you find some mammals.
You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. You never find a lower one
trying to swim its way to a higher one. If it all happened in such an extraordinary short amount of time,
if this water drained away just like that, wouldn't we expect to see some turbulence?
And by the way, anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that, one example of that
anywhere in the world, the scientists of the world challenge you. They would embrace you. You would be a hero.
You would change the world if you could find one example of that anywhere.
People have looked, and looked and looked. They have not found a single one.
Now here's an interesting thing. These are fossil skulls that people have found all around the world.
It's by no means representative of all the fossil skulls that have been found, but these are all over the place.
Now, if you were to look at these, I can assure you, not any of them is a gorilla. Right?
If as Mr. Ham and his associates claim, there was just man and then everybody else, there were just
humans and all other species, where would you put modern humans among these skulls?
How did all these skulls get all over the earth in these extraordinary fashion? Where would you put us?
I can tell you we are on there and I encourage you, when you go home, to look it up.
Now, one of the extraordinary claims associated with Mr. Ham's worldview is that this giant boat
a very large wooden ship, went aground safely on a mountain in the Middle, what we now call the Middle East.
And so places like Australia are populated then by animals who somehow managed to get
from the Middle East all the way to Australia in the last 4,000 years.
Now that to me, is an extraordinary claim. We would expect then, somewhere between the Middle East
and Australia, we would expect to find evidence of kangaroos. We would expect to find
some fossils, some bones in the last 4,000 years. Somebody would have been hopping along there
and died along the way, and we'd find them. And furthermore, there's a claim
that there was a land bridge that allowed these animals to get from Asia all the way
to the continent of Australia. And that land bridge has disappeared, has disappeared in the last
4,000 years. No navigator, no diver, no U.S. Navy submarine, no one has ever detected any evidence
of this, let alone any evidence of fossils of kangaroos. So, your expectation is not met.
It doesn't seem to hold up. So, let's see. If there are 4,000 years since Ken Ham's flood
and let's say, as he said many times, there are 7,000 kinds,
today the very, very lowest estimate is that there are about 8.7 million species.
But a much more reasonable estimate is it's 50 million, or even 100 million,
when you start counting the viruses and the bacteria and all the beetles that must be extant
in the tropical rain forests that we haven't found. So we'll take a number which I think is pretty reasonable,
16 million species today. If these came from 7,000 kinds,
let's say we have 7,000 subtracted from 15 million,
that's 15,993. If 4,000 years, we have 365.25 days a year,
we would expect to find 11 new species every day.
So you'd go out into your yard, you wouldn't just find a different bird, a new bird
you'd find a different kind of bird, a whole new species, a bird!
Every day, a new species of fish, a new species of organisms you can't see, and so on.
I mean, this would be enormous news. The last 4,000 years people would have seen these changes among us.
So the Cincinnati Enquirer, I imagine, would carry a column right next to the weather report:
Today's New Species, and it would list these 11 every day, but we see no evidence of that.
There's no evidence of these species. There simply isn't enough time.
Now as you may know, I was graduated from engineering school and I was,
I got a job at Boeing. I worked on 747s. I, okay everybody relax, I was very well supervised.
Everything's fine. There's a tube in the 747 I kind of think of that's my tube.
But that aside, I travelled the highways of Washington state quite a bit.
I was a young guy. I had a motorcycle. I used to go mountain climbing in Washington state... Oregon.
And you can drive along and find these enormous boulders on top of the ground, enormous rocks,
huge, sitting on top of the ground. Now, out there, in regular academic pursuits, regular geology,
people have discovered that there was, used to be a lake in what is now Montana
which we charmingly refer to as Lake Missoula.
It's not there now but the evidence for it, of course, if I may, overwhelming.
And so, an ice dam would form at Lake Missoula and once in a while it would break.
It would build up and break. And there were multiple floods in my old state of Washington state.
And, just, before we go on, let me just say, go Seahawks! That was very gratifying, very gratifying for me.
Anyway you drive along the road and there are these rocks. So, if as is asserted at this facility,
that the heavier rocks would sink to the bottom during a flood event,
the big rocks, and especially their shape, instead of aerodynamic,
the hydrodynamic, the water changing shape, as water flows past,
you'd expect them to sink to the bottom. But here are these enormous rocks right on the surface.
And there's no shortage of them. If you go driving in Washington state or Oregon
they are readily available. So how could those be there if the Earth is just 4,000 years old.
How could they be there if this one flood caused that?
Another remarkable thing I'd like everybody to consider, alone inherent in this worldview,
is that somehow Noah and his family were able to build a wooden ship that would house
14,000 individuals. There were 7,000 kinds and then, there's a boy and a girl for each one of those,
so there's about 14,000... 8 people. And these people were unskilled.
As far as anybody knows they had never built a wooden ship before.
Furthermore, they had to get all these animals on there. And they had to feed them.
And I understand that Mr. Ham has some explanations for that, which I frankly find extraordinary but
this is the premise of the bit. And we can then run a test, a scientific test.
People in the early 1900s built an extraordinary, large wooden ship, the Wyoming.
It was a six-masted schooner, the largest one ever built. It had a motor on it for winching cables and stuff.
But this boat had a great difficulty. It was not as big as the Titanic, but it was a very long ship.
It would twist in the sea. It would twist, this way, this way, and this way.
And in all that twisting, it leaked. It leaked like crazy. The crew could not keep the ship dry.
And indeed, it eventually foundered and sank, a loss of all 14 hands. So there were 14 crewmen
aboard a ship built by very, very skilled shipwrights in New England.
These guys were the best in the world at wooden shipbuilding. And they couldn't build
a boat as big as the Ark is claimed to have been.
Is that reasonable? Is that possible that the best shipbuilders in the world couldn't do
what eight unskilled people, men and their wives, were able to do?
If you visit the National Zoo, in Washington D.C., it's 163 acres. And they have 400 species.
By the way, this picture that you're seeing was taken by spacecraft in space, orbiting the Earth.
If you told my grandfather, let alone my father, that we were, that we had that capability,
they would have been amazed. That capability comes from our fundamental understanding
of gravity, of material science, of physics, and life science, where you go looking.
This place is often, as any zoo, is often deeply concerned and criticized for how it treats its animals.
They have 400 species on 163 acres, 66 hectares. Is it reasonable that Noah and his colleagues,
his family, were able to maintain 14,000 animals and themselves, and feed them, aboard a ship
that was bigger than anyone's ever been able to build?
Now, here's the thing, what we want in science, science as practiced on the outside,
is an ability to predict. We want to have a natural law that is so obvious and clear,
so well understood that we can make predictions about what will happen.
We can predict that we can put a spacecraft in orbit and take a picture of Washington D.C.
We can predict that if we provide this much room for an elephant, it will live healthily
for a certain amount of time. I'll give you an example.
In the explanation provided by traditional science, of how we came to be,
we find as Mr. Ham alluded to many times in his recent remarks,
we find a sequence of animals in what, generally, is called "the fossil record."
This would be to say when we look at the layers, that you would find in Kentucky,
you look at them carefully, you find a sequence of animals, a succession.
And as one might expect, when you are looking at old records
there's some pieces seem to be missing, a gap.
So scientists got to thinking about this.
There are lungfish that jump from pond to pond in Florida
and end up in people's swimming pools.
And there are amphibians, frogs and toads, croaking and carrying on.
And so people wondered if there wasn't a fossil or an organism,
an animal, that had lived, that had characteristics of both.
People over the years had found that in Canada,
there was clearly a fossil marsh--
a place that used to be a swamp that had dried out.
And they found all kinds of happy swamp fossils there:
ferns, organisms, animals, fish that were recognized.
And people realized that if this, with the age of the rocks there,
as computed by traditional scientists, with the age of the rocks there,
this would be a reasonable place to look for an animal,
a fossil of an animal that lived there. And, indeed, scientists found it.
Tiktaalik, this fish-lizard guy.
And they found several specimens, it wasn't one individual.
In other words, they made a prediction, that this animal
would be found and it was found. So far, Mr. Ham and his worldview,
the Ken Ham creation model, does not have this capability.
It cannot make predictions and show results.
Here's an extraordinary one that I find remarkable.
There are certain fish, the Topminnows, that have
the remarkable ability to have sex with other fish,
traditional fish sex, and they can have sex with themselves.
Now, one of the old questions in life science, everybody,
one of the old chin strokers is why does any organism,
whether you're an ash tree, a sea jelly, a squid, a marmot,
why does anybody have sex? I mean, there are more bacteria
in your tummy right now then there are humans on Earth.
And bacteria, they don't bother with that, man.
They split themselves in half, they get new bacteria!
Like, let's get her done! Let's go. But why does any--
think of all the trouble a rose bush goes to make a flower and the thorns
and the bees flying around, interacting--why does anybody bother with all that?
And the answer seems to be...your enemies.
And your enemies are not lions and tigers and bears...oh my!
No, your enemies are germs and parasites.
That's what's gonna get you. Germs and parasites.
My first cousin's son died tragically from essentially the flu.
This is not some story I heard about. This is my first cousin, once removed.
Because, apparently, the virus had the right genes to attack his genes.
So when you have sex you have a new set of genes.
You have a new mixture. So people studied these Topminnows.
And they found that the ones who reproduced sexually
had fewer parasites that the ones who reproduced on their own.
This Black Spot disease--wait, wait, there's more.
In these populations, with flooding and so on, when river ponds get isolated,
then they dry up, then the river flows again.
In between, some of the fish will have sex with other fish,
sometimes, and they'll have sex on their own, what's called asexually.
And those fish, the ones that are in between, sometimes this,
sometimes that, they have an intermediate number of infections.
In other words, the explanation provided by evolution made a prediction.
And the prediction's extraordinary and subtle, but there it is.
How else would you explain it?
And to Mr. Ham and his followers I say this is something we in science want.
We want the ability to predict. And your assertion
that there's some difference between the natural laws
that I use to observe the world today and the natural laws
that existed 4,000 years ago is extraordinary and unsettling.
I travel around. I have a great many family members
in Danville, Virginia, one of the U.S's most livable cities.
It's lovely. And I was driving along and there was a sign in front of a church:
"Big Bang theory? You got to be kidding me. God."
Now, everybody, why would someone at the church, a pastor for example,
put that sign up unless he or she didn't believe
that the big bang was a real thing? I just want to review,
briefly, with everybody why we accept,
in the outside world, why we accept the Big Bang.
Edwin Hubble, sorry, there you go,you gotta be kidding me God.
Edwin Hubble was sitting at Mount Wilson, which is up from Pasadena, California.
On a clear day you can look down and see where the Rose Parade goes.
It's that close to civilization.
But even in the early 1900's, the people who selected this site for astronomy
picked an excellent site. The clouds and smog are below you.
And Edwin Hubble sat there at this very big telescope night after night studying the heavens.
And he found that the stars are moving apart.
And he wasn't sure why. But it was clear that the stars are moving farther and farther apart all the time.
So people talked about it for a couple decades.
And then eventually another astronomer, almost a couple decades, another astronomer
Fred Hoyle just remarked, "Well, it was like there was a big bang.
There was an explosion. This is to say; since everything's moving apart,
it's very reasonable that at one time they were all together.
And there's a place from whence, or rather whence, these things expanded."
And it was a remarkable insight.
But people went still questioning it for decades.
Scientists, conventional scientists, questioning it for decades.
These two researchers wanted to listen for radio signals from space--radio astronomy.
And this is while we have visible light for our eyes, there is a whole other bunch of waves of light
that are much longer. The microwaves in your oven are about that long.
The radar at the airport is about that long. Your FM radio signals about like this.
AM radio signals are a kilometer--they're a couple, several soccer fields.
They went out listening. And there was this hiss, this hisssssss, all the time
that wouldn't go away. And they thought "Oh! Doggone it. There's some loose
connector." They plugged in the connector. They rescrewed it. They made it tight.
They turned it this way. The hiss was still there.
They turned it that way. It was still there.
They thought it was pigeon droppings that had affected the reception of this "horn" it's called.
This thing is still there. It's in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
It's a national historic site. And Arno Pinzius and Robert Wilson had found
this cosmic background sound that was predicted by astronomers.
Astronomers running the numbers, doing math, predicted
that in the cosmos would be left over this echo,
this energy, from the Big Bang that would be detectable.
And they detected it. We built the Cosmic Observatory for Background Emissions, the COBE spacecraft,
and it matched exactly, exactly the astronomers predictions.
You gotta respect that. It's a wonderful thing.
Now, along that line is some interest in the age of the earth.
Right now, it's generally agreed that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago.
What we can on earth. These elements that we all know on the Periodic Table of Chemicals,
even ones we don't know, were created when stars explode.
And I look like nobody. But I attended a lecture by Hans Betta who won a Nobel
Prize for discovering the process by which stars create all these elements.
The one that interests me especially is our good friends Rubidium and Strontium.
Rubidium becomes Strontium spontaneously. It's an interesting thing to me.
A neutron becomes a proton. And it goes up the Periodic Table.
When lava comes out of the ground, molten lava,
and it freezes, turns to rock, when the melt solidifies,
or crystalizes, it locks the Rubidium and Strontium in place.
And so by careful assay, by careful, by being diligent, you can tell when the rock froze.
You can tell how old the Rubidium and Strontium are. And you can get an age for the earth.
When that stuff falls on fossils, you can get a very good idea of how old the fossils are.
I encourage you all to go to Nebraska, go to Ashfall State Park
and see the astonishing fossils. It looks like a Hollywood movie.
There are rhinoceroses. There are three-toed horses in Nebraska.
None of those animals are extant today. And they are buried, catastrophically, by a
volcano in what is now Idaho. Is now Yellowstone National Park.
What is called the hot spot. People call it the super-volcano.
And it's the remarkable thing. Apparently, as I can tell you, as a Northwesterner around
for Mount St. Helen's. For full disclosure I'm on the Mount St. Helen's Board.
When it (explosive sound), when it goes off it gives out a great deal of gas
that's toxic and knock these animals out. Looking for relief, they go to a watering
hole. And then when the ash comes they were all buried. It's an extraordinary place.
Now if in the bad old days, you had heart problems, they would right away cut you open.
Now, we use a drug based on Rubidium to look at the inside of your heart without cutting you open.
Now, my Kentucky friends, I want you to consider this. Right now, there is no place
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to get a degree in this kind of nuclear medicine--
this kind of drugs associated with that.
I hope you find that troubling. I hope you're concerned about that.
You want scientifically literate students in your commonwealth for a better tomorrow for everybody.
You can, you can't get this here. You have to go out of state.
Now as far as the distance to stars. Understand this is very well understood.
We, it's February. We look at a star in February. We measure an angle to it.
We wait six months. We look at that same star again and we measure that angle.
It's the same way carpenters built this building. It's the same way surveyors surveyed the land that we're standing on.
And so by measuring the distance to a star, you can figure out how far away it is, that star,
and the stars beyond it, and the stars beyond that. There are billions of stars.
Billions of stars more than six thousand light years from here.
A light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time.
There are billions of stars. Mr. Hamm, how could there be billions of stars more distant
than six thousand years, if the world's only six thousand years old?
It's an extraordinary claim. There's another astronomer, Adolphe Quetele, who remarked first
about the reasonable man. Is it reasonable that we have ice older by a factor of a hundred than you claim the earth is?
We have trees that have more tree rings than the earth is old.
We have rocks with Rubidium and Strontium, and Uranium-Uranium, and Potassium-Argon dating
that are far, far, far older than you claim the earth is.
Could anybody have built an ark that would sustain the better than any ark anybody was able to build on the earth?
So, if you're asking me, and I got the impression you were,
is Ken Hamm's creation model viable? I say "No! Absolutely not!"
Now, one last thing. You may not know that in the US Constitution, from the founding fathers,
is the sentence "to promote the progress of science and useful arts..."
Kentucky voters, voters who might be watching on line,
in places like Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, please
you don't want to raise a generation of science students
who don't understand how we know our place in the cosmos,
our place in space, who don't understand natural law.
We need to innovate to keep the United States where it is in the world.