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 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, you are auditory and here,
all 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 of 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.
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 a 130 scientific papers on
the scientific design in Engineering and Biological systems.
From my research work, I find that the scientific evidence
fully supports Creationism as the best explanation to origins.
I've also designed major parts of space crafts,
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, space craft, 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, he'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.
We 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, they are Origins or Historical Science
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 us 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 of football they 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.
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 facility here.
Now, looking around the room I think I see just one bow tie.
Is that right? Just one. I'm telling you, once you try it--
oh, there's 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: 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 construct 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 under water 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.