Evolution Bill-Nye-vs.-Ken-Ham-Debate_f_improf_645x254

Published on January 6th, 2014 | by Gary DeMar


How I would Debate Bill Nye the UnScience Guy

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.



Print Friendly

About the Author

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, His most recent book is Exposing the Real Last Days Scoffers. Gary lives in Marietta, Georgia, with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and four grandchildren, Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).

18 Responses to How I would Debate Bill Nye the UnScience Guy

  1. Bill Evans says:

    This is how Ken Hamm should do it??? Heh, maybe it’s how YOU should do it. Ken is no slouch, and has been fighting the good fight without AV for many years. Hamm is a presuppositionalist, and will do just fine. Ultimately, this is God’s show. BTW, have you visited the Creation Museum? WOW!!!

  2. Dcrypter says:

    It seems that there is very little understanding of science on this forum at all. Evolution is a process of gradual change over time. Creationist determined to disprove Evolution fail to understand one of sciences’ basic duties, if you can prove with data not a 2000 year old tomb and have it apply every single time to each scenario and use that to make a prediction on new test results to come then you have an arguable point. Also a point to make is that GOD didn’t write the Bible. If that were true there would only be 1 book, 1 religion, there would be no contradictions, it would be unquestioned as a flawless document. Here is a tidbit of science meets God; If God is perfect and man was created in his image then why would a perfect creator give man one of the poorest eyes in nature.

  3. Richard says:

    Reads first question, See’s it’s about abiogenesis not evolution. Laughs.

  4. jeff says:

    ive seen atheists(evolutionists) comment on this site before but am surprised to find none here now. they simply cannot answer these questions put forth so simply and logically. this is a very good article though maybe a little tough on ken ham. AIG does good work and I have a high degree of confidence that ken ham will embarrass bill Nye. ive seen “how to answer the fool” and think pre-suppositional apologetics is the preferred method. im uncomfortable saying that giving evidence is putting God on trial and is tantamount to “neglect of duty” as sye ten bruggencate puts it. I think if one is respectful then “removing stones from their shoes” is appropriate. anyhow I look forward to the debate.

  5. Slimjim says:

    Good article; that was my concern when I first the title of the debate on facebook; it should be more about the nonbeliever’s ability to account for facts and reality rather than be imbalanced against Christian creationism per se.

  6. Rich says:

    “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific world?”

    hmmm…What kind of Creation? Have they agreed to what concept of “Creation” is even under question? What would Bill do if Ken were to come out defending Theistic Evolution? But, knowing that Ken is a YECist, and as such, he most obsolutely come out from that perspecitive, I’m afraid Bill is going to wipe the floor with him.

  7. Drew says:

    It’s as important to defend the Bible as it is to attack evolution. It sounds like their debate is going to be focused on reconciling the Bible with modern scientific observations.

  8. Breeezey says:

    Every time I get into these type of debates I point to Bible prophecy as God’s signature. They never have an answer for the prophecies in Daniel. They never have an answer to the prophecies about Jesus. They never have an answer for the prophecies concerning Babylon, Tyre, or the Jews. Isaiah names Cyrus by name 150 years before he was born. Jeremiah names the length of their captivity at 70 years. I’d love to see any of the bible scholars debate just using prophecy as offense and defense. One third of the bible is prophetic. Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies. Prophecy all by itself could win the debate.

  9. Linda says:

    Don’t underestimate Ken Ham. He is a lifelong defender of Biblical creation science and he learned from the best..Dr. Henry Morris.

  10. I sent this article link to AIG, asking Dr Ham to read the article and contact Gary Demar if need be..

    I would encourage other folks to do it too..

    This would help to ensure that the debate is conducted in accordance to how it should be done… with evolution on the defensive.

  11. Ken says:

    I agree that the debate question puts creation on the defensive, and that Gary’s question puts evolution on the defensive. By the grace of God, Ken needs to turn this around right at the start of the debate. I believe that Jason Lisle at ICE, formerly at AIG, argues much as Gary does (and Greg Bahsen did), using a strong presuppositional approach: for example, “If the Bible isn’t true, then we couldn’t know anything at all.” I’m sure that Ken is intimately familiar with that approach, which is evident in a number of AIG publications. Ultimately this is a debate between God’s Truth and satan’s lies, and we all can and should pray that the Holy Spirit will convince many of God’s Truth and at least disabuse many others of satan’s lies. God is capable even of making Bill give glory…

    • Ken says:

      …to Him!

    • vRico says:

      I did feel the same way. However on review I noted that Bahnsen debated on “Does God exist” which would at least on the surface appear to be defensive requiring the theist to answer but not necessarily the atheist. Those debates put to bed my misgivings as Bahnsen masterfully revealed the atheist argument CANNOT even say if God exists or not. Only with a theistic worldview can you BEGIN to understand anything. Amazing.

  12. Alex Alexander says:

    You’re being very hard on Ken Ham.
    He’s one of us!
    Alex A

  13. harmon says:

    One cannot “debate” evolutionist zeal. It sees the physicochemical creativity in which we live, as the painstaking happenstance produced by eons of solar time. Its scientistic truth precedes all discussion: the Great Information-Processing Natural Selector has used billions upon billions of years to trial-and-error the present biosphere into existence. What is there to talk about? Lifelessness gave life to life, matter made mind, and the undesigned designed design. You can’t debate that kind of natural magic. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinth. 2:14).”

    • vRico says:

      I would argue that Scripture does instruct us to close the mouth of the fool: Proverbs 26:4-5, and supported by Proverbs 17:28, 18:6-7 (yikes!). I remain teachable in this area but I think that Apologetics is taught in scripture and is a noble pursuit of the Christian Theologian. You have revealed the foolishness of the irrational fool in your words. You do a noble thing indeed!

  14. Ducky says:

    Why atheists/evolutionists will never win the masses over: People get out of bed everyday, instinctively, knowing that they have to work in order to generate progress, value, and wealth. It’s like they react to this knowledge as it were implemented long before they were born.

  15. Matthew says:

    You can probably get A.I.G. or Ken Hamm on the phone.

Back to Top ↑