Hi All: Did anyone see this? I am reading a few comments that they were both very civil and it was a good debate. Wayne
Read about it before it happened. Bill was brave to go into the Creation Museum for the debate. I think the caption across the photo presents the best light on both sides. One is faith, one is science.
Here's a link to a video of the debate: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham
Both are at least partially correct. But the problem is that both sides of the creation / evolution argument are attacking each other with terms that each define differently.
Isn't young-Earth creationism either true or false? One may believe it or reject it, with one side being right and the other wrong depending on whether it is true or false. But regardless of anyone's belief, it is either true or false. What am I missing?
We cannot pick and choose which parts of science we want to "believe" in or not. Science is consistent and all fields overlap in the sense that they are all part of our understanding of reality. Do creationists not believe in hybrid plants or animal breeding or medicine or DNA analysis?
Agreed, Neil. My point was how could creationist Ham be partially correct? He and Nye would agree that Ham's view must be right or wrong, I think. And I think they could agree that Nye is partially correct because his view is ever-changing and never completely explained. Apparently, the creationist in the debate, Ham, accepts science he can personally test today, except that which contradicts his interpretation of Genesis. The latter is rejected out of hand in favor of the biblical account. We can choose whether to accept a religious tenet, but the assertion of that tenet is either true or false whether we believe or not. The same is true of a scientific theory: doesn't matter whether we believe it or even fathom the issue. Difference is the theory can be tested, changed as required by the evidence.
Actually there are two branches of science. One branch I think it is called Physical Science is based on observable properties and conditions/reactions. These by properties are document-able, repeatable and verifiable by others. These observations are the basis of all engineering. An example of this is the properties of electricity and magnetism. Well documented observations have led to inventions that we use everyday. The other branch I think it is call Theoretical Science is theory and conjecture. It is not observable, repeatable, or verifiable by others. An example of this is evolution which is a theory and cannot be observed, verifiable or repeatable. We tend to lump the two branched of science together and think the a theory is the same as fact. An interesting note. Theoretical science can be ignored as it has no bearing on engineering or invention.
How can evolution not be observed, repeated, or verified? Bacteria have evolved antibiotic resistance which has had an effect on engineering and invention.
Are you claiming this is observed evolution. Really, then chihuahuas are proof of evolution. Adaptation or breeding within a species is observed, but it is not a change of a species or I am wrong. Have the breeders breed cat from a dog yet.
That seems like Ham's view, but that split is not widely accepted outside creationist groups, and the line one would draw between good and bad science is a royal mess, eh?
It doesn't have to be accepted for it to be an accurate description of what science is. Why would you think of them as "good" or "bad". Neither is good or bad. One is based on observable fact and one is not. In the example Mike referenced, a change in bacteria is an observation that is repeatable and verifiable/. Like he said bio engineering is based on it.
We seem to have different definitions of evolution. From my understanding, a new species is not required to observe evolution. Adaptation occurs through evolution.
OK, I just don't think an adaptation of your microb correlates to prove the entire evolution from a single cell.
Maybe you could think of it this way. Some "science" was needed for Nikola Tesla to invent the alternating current electric motor. The science required was the physical science. It is the observable science that which is based on observation, verifiability and repeatability. He took these science discovered properties and invented the motor. Where the electric conductor came from or how old it is had no bearing on Nikola's invention. The theory has no bearing on the engineering. That is the difference. You could be a scientist today and not agree with evolution except that the scientific community does not allow that.
I'm with bestmapman as only taxidermists have been able to evolve one animal into another species. Where is the science that proves we all came from a "Big Bang" instead everything was created through Intelligent Design by the Creator. By observation everyone should be able to see the order of everything and that chance + chance = no order at all. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
This is the old what came first the Chicken or the Egg argument. I don't have a dog in this fight as they say but no matter which side I would take I could argue the opposite side easily. The problem is neither side realizes that they're both interconnected to each other.
I hear a lot of anti-evolutionists dismissing evolution as "just a theory". As if the word theory means mere (as you put it) conjecture. But a theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence. So calling evolution "just a theory" is not very convincing to me. Personally, I'm a Christian but I also believe that evolution as currently understood by science is probably correct. I still believe that that the hand of God directed creation, and it seems perfectly logical that evolution would have been one of the mechanisms. I do not understand why some people see the two as mutually contradictory. I don't need to believe that the earth was created in precisely 604,800 seconds, or that the earth is only a few thousand 365.25-day years old. Much of Scripture seems clearly intended as metaphorical and allegorical. Jesus himself spoke in parables to convey many of his points: to get hung up on whether Jesus actually knew someone who had turned down a feast invitation because he had bought an ox or gotten married would be missing the point of the story entirely. The fact that Genesis 2 retells the story of creation in a different order than the better known 7-days story in Genesis 1 is an enormous contradiction to put at the very opening of scripture; it might even be a hint to not take things too literally, something we tend to do in our mechanistic, legalistic, scientific, literal age. Heck, even in this (ahem) day and age we don't necessarily mean exactly 86,400 seconds when we use the word "day"; it can refer to an age or an era as well. Assuming the 1440-minute definition seems to me an attempt to impose a modern, precisionistic meaning upon an ancient text that wasn't meant that way at all. In other words, it is possible to believe both that the earth is billions of years old, and that the pre-Christian Old Testament is the word of God. Or, what Al said:
Learning a lot and had the half way point of the vid. Watching this has not change my opinion that only fools believe tails written by humans.
