On February 4, 2014, Ken Ham, Creation Museum Founder and Answers in Genesis President/CEO will debate Bill Nye at the Creation Museum on this question: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific world?”
Bill Nye is the former host of the popular Bill Nye the Science Guy TV program for children, current Executive Director of the Planetary Society, and he is a frequent pro-evolution guest on TV interview programs.
How I would I go about debating Bill Nye the UnScience Guy? First, I never would have agreed to the question being debated. I would have chosen “Is Abiogenesis a Viable Model of Origins in any World?” This is what it’s really all about: Life from non-life. The debate would be over before it started. To win, Bill Nye will have to demonstrate scientifically (demonstrate is the key word) that life as we know it came from non-life from no outside intelligent agency.
In reality, evolution is about alchemy without the having the needed lead to turn into gold, conjuring something out of nothing. Not even Penn & Teller claim to be able to do that. There’s always something when it seems that they are conjuring things out of thin air.
Until evolutionists demonstrate (1) the origin of matter out of nothing (a topic they rarely want to talk about), (2) how inorganic matter evolved into organic matter (spontaneous generation), (3) the origin of information and its meaningful organization (DNA programming), and (4) a genetic explanation for why it is mandatory that anyone be moral (ethics), evolution is a modern form of alchemy.
No evolutionist has ever shown a single example of spontaneous generation. That’s why evolutionists want to talk about this found skull and that found femur and this percentage of chimpanzee DNA in relation to human DNA. It’s a long way from nothing to you and me and everything in between. I want to know how nothing became something and how that something became the UnScience Guy and the rest of the life we see on planet earth in terms of what can be demonstrated scientifically.
Make the UnScience Guy account for the stuff of the cosmos, the organized information to make the cosmos act the way it does, how non-life became life as we know it given the fact that spontaneous generation is rejected by the scientific community on scientific grounds.
Also make Nye account for non-physical entities like reason, logic, and morality and why the things that we evolved entities do or don’t do have eternal consequences, and if they don’t, then what would be morally (not socially, legally, culturally, or pragmatically) wrong for someone to put a loaded gun to Bill Nye’s head and pull the trigger.
As a popularizer of science, the UnScience Guy must prove all these things empirically. I would not allow him to use philosophical or theoretical arguments since they are not science because they have not been demonstrated in the lab.
Bill Nye goes by “The Science Guy” not “The Theoretical Science Guy” or even “The Philosophy Guy.”
Ken Ham needs to stick to the operating assumptions of Bill Nye and never let go. It’s called “forcing the antithesis,” pushing him to live in terms of his operating presuppositions.