‘Bad for Humankind': Bill Nye Attacks Ken Ham’s Biblical Beliefs in Opinion Column


Bill Nye YouTubeTwo-and-a-half months after creationist Ken Ham publicly debated evolutionist Bill Nye ‘the Science Guy,’ Nye has written a column for a skeptics magazine, in which he lambasts Ham’s biblical Creation beliefs.

As previously reported, Ham, president of Answers in Genesis (AiG), and Nye discussed the question, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” in a February 4 debate. AiG has estimated that a total of 12 million people have viewed the historic debate so far—either live in early February or through recordings of the event.

Since February 4, Ham has written numerous commentaries and articles on the debate. In comparison, Nye has remained largely silent. However, in a 3,000-word opinion column published this month by the Skeptical Inquirer, Nye offered his perspective on the debate.

Throughout the column, Nye disparages the biblical creation point of view, describing it as “thoughtless,” “completely unreasonable,” and “useless from a practical standpoint.” Nye also says he agreed to debate Ham in AiG’s Creation Museum because he “relish[es] … confrontation” and “wanted to be in the belly of the beast.”

“I held strongly to the view that [the debate] was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind,” Nye wrote. “I do not feel I’m exaggerating when I express it this strongly.”

Nye also asserted that his evolutionary beliefs are founded on “elementary science and common sense.”

“I did my best to slam Ken Ham with a great many scientific and common sense arguments,” Nye boasts. “I believed he wouldn’t have the time or the focus to address many of them.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Overall, Nye believes his performance in the debate was superior to Ham’s, and hopes it creates a pro-evolutionary legacy.

“By all, or a strong majority of, accounts, I bested him,” Nye asserted. “I frankly hope that in the coming few years not a single student in Kentucky is indoctrinated by the Answers in Genesis facilities and staff.”

Following Nye’s claims, Ham responded on Wednesday with both a blog post and a thorough online commentary.

“There was so much misinformation and so many demeaning comments found in Mr. Nye’s attack against Answers in Genesis and me personally,” Ham wrote, “that I decided to respond to a number of his statements in a commentary.”

“Not only do Bill Nye and I hold totally different positions on origins,” he said, “we also have different accounts of the history surrounding our debate at the Creation Museum on February 4.”

“It was encouraging that Mr. Nye repeated the most-referred-to quote from the debate: ‘There is a book (the Bible),’ Ham stated. “And it’s also encouraging that Mr. Nye has changed his mind, from at one time thinking that I was some sort of charlatan (as he once said in an interview) to recognizing that I do believe what I am teaching, and that I’m passionate about it.”

“Sadly, though,” he added, “he has once again made out that the AiG staff and our supporters are my ‘parishioners,’ almost as if I lead some sort of cultish group.”

Ham then encouraged people to visit the AiG website and explore numerous articles which deal in detail with topics covered in the February debate.

Overall, Ham remains optimistic about the debate outcome, remarking, “I believe this debate did and continues to spark interest across the world about the creation/evolution issue, and has opened the door for Christians to witness to their friends and family.”

“And I have two questions for Mr. Nye, which are the same questions I challenged him about during the debate and continue to be left unanswered,” Ham concluded.

  1. “How do you account for the laws of logic and laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God?
  2. “Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

“I await the answers,” he said.

Photo: YouTube

Print Friendly

  • Richie Cunningham

    Frank I can’t see your whole post but what I saw was this

    “The first question is dealt with quite easily. The answer is that we are here in a universe in which the laws of physics we know of actually apply — or we wouldn’t be here to discuss them”

    That actually doesn’t answer the question. If you were the sole survivor of a plane crash and you were asked how you survived and you answered “well if I didn’t survive, I wouldn’t be here to discuss it”… that doesn’t answer the question.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Hey Richie, that is a great apologetic you provided – thanks! That’s the first time I’ve heard this one.

    • nicholas

      Actually it does. if you disagree then you must believe that the laws of nature/physics are not as we observe them which would in fact deny existence, existence however is a fact, and that directly correlates to Ken ham being incorrect.

  • brandon morgan

    I have a question for bill nye in one of his shows he mentioned psudoscience which is a claim that cant be tested in the Bible it says each kind produces its own kind we observe that but eveloution says there was changes in kind that is psudoscience because you cant observe or test that so isnt that psudoscience bill had a claim that you cant test or observe so i want bill nye to explain that.

    • nicholas

      Look at the corn plant, from the Mayan days, extremely different than what it is now, it has evolved due to mankind cultivating it to produce more corn naturally, observable adaption/evolution. Another way to look at it is in a middle or high school class you learn about the scientist trying to prove evolution through cultivating peas, this is no different than corn, which modified itself because of our input, no scientific gene splicing did this at the time, only the cultivation techniques, that became part of the plants natural growth passed on through its seeds.

  • Jeanine Schaefer

    Bill Nye has every right to say his comment in a right to free speech sort of way. However, as far as the debate went. BOTH parties LOST on the logic and science field. It was like watching two little old ladies fight by doing a relay race in wheelchairs. They both made a lot of noise, and said a lot of words, but in the end, the weren’t really fighting each other. NEITHER of them used scientific logic and that surprised me. Because at least ONE of them proclaimed to BE a science guy! Now UNLIKE what some of you believe, science and the Bible are NOT mutually exclusive.

    First of all, science doesn’t SAY anything! Science is the study of the physical world, or a systematic body of knowledge, but it is PEOPLE that look at PARTS of that knowledge and then say what they think it means. I really used to like Nye, but that debate showed him to have a very POOR grasp of logic and even poorer use of science.

    Ham (a creationist) works backwards. He uses the Bible as his Theory, and then works to prove that theory. Evolutionists take hypotheses’ (some that have been refuted by credible scientists, but are being ignored) and use those hypotheses to “predict” outcomes. This is a VAST oversimplification on both sides. Scientists have used BOTH methods to (forwards and backwards) in working to understand our universe. As long as their math and physics equations are correct, it as ALL OK.

    Both sides get tangled up in similar accusations. Atheists get mad when Christians expect them to hold accountable to the same logic that they expect Christians to hold to. And Christians get mad when Atheists expect them to tell them how things relate in a more physical or logical, rather than a “because that’s how I feel” way.

    Nye was just a disappointment. When he used SITCOMS as some of his “proof”, that was his acceptance of no longer being a man of SCIENCE, but of FLUFF.

    The Bible has been proven from many NON-Biblical sources over many years. There is more evidence for Jesus Christ existing (outside of the Bible) than there is for Julius Caesar. Archeologists keep finding more and more evidence that coincides with the Bible.

    • Right-o

      Thou shalt not lie… well, you are ignoring a prime directive, junior.

    • nicholas

      Do you accept the dead sea scrolls as real information? If you do the bible, then you have a contradiction as jesus had zero divine powers. Did he wave his hand and turn water magically into wine? Or did he wave his hand, a signal that bade servants to take away the water and replace it with wine? I walk on water every time it rains. Did God stop the sunnin the sky during an ancient battle? Where his believers committed the sin of slaying other humans? Or is it more likely to say that the scribe taking down the events of battle was killed, and it took an hour for then to find a new one, and as the victors could write whatever “fact” they wished.
      Ken proposed dating methods are incorrect, because of one occurrence where trees trapped in a specific layer of the earth were not as old as the stone surrounding them, nye said the stone probably moved and covered it like a blanket, where the trees via scientific dating method were only tens of thousands of years old, surrounded by millions of year old rock, nye is correct, how? Simple once the wood had been covered, no new carbon could ensue that area, which means the wood would no longer age, thusly keeping it preserved at its far younger age, any scientist should be able to understand that with only common sense. Otherwise all of the rock in the area could only be 6000 years old, and the wood trapped could only be 6000 years old but that is impossible unless everything on this planet it’s only 6000 years old, which also means that our carbon dating would only be able to read an age of 6000 years which they do not.

  • David

    I think it’s so funny that atheists resort to name calling and insults because their arguments are invalid. When you get down to it atheists do not base their unbelief on scientific principles but usually when you dig deeper you find an emotional/spiritual component to their disbelief. Go ahead wee ones let the name calling begin….

    • nicholas

      I’m an atheist, and I didn’t call anyone names, you attempt to lump all atheists into one group and accuse some of us falsely. Also I believe your bible says not to pass judgement on thy neighbor, which you have just done, you have now sinned, and will burn in the fiery depths of a hell YOU believe exists, you can repent for this, I believe an unlimited amount of times, thusly allowing you to commit the same sin every day with no repercussions, where in this do you learn what you have some wrong?

      • nicholas

        Done* yes we can blame spelling errors on our technological phones, in this day and age.

    • kayiu102

      It’s ironic that you accuse atheists of name calling and yet you call them “wee ones” yourself. Please try not to be hypocritical, it undermines your whole argument.

  • http://eachnewday.com Peter Rhebergen

    Reading from both Mr. Nye’s and Mr. Ham’s comments following the debate I am of the opinion that I would much rather oppose Mr. Ham than Mr. Nye. I think Mr. Ham would treat me with more care. Mr. Nye resorts to name-calling and maintains an condescending attitude, while Mr. Ham is gracious and maintains an attitude of respect. Which says a great deal about the kind of person each man is and (just perhaps) the impact that their belief systems have had on how they became that person.

  • nicholas

    New research shows that your brain does not like to do the same thing over and over, once you have done something enough times, it becomes old news, which means that your brain has less activity than it would if you attempted to do something new, or understand something that you never have. Consider this, the bible is nearly 3000 years old, there is nothing new in it, your brain is less active, than someone studying in a scientific field. Also consider why would you believe this book the bible, and not believe a book of science, where everything in the book of science can be described, seen by one method or another(our eyes, or technological aid), and verified by any person. Why would you believe a book(written by primitive minded humans) that openly contradicts itself within its own pages? Murder is a sin, the religion and period following this religion have murdered many, pagans because they believed in something else, the Salem witch trials innocent women burned alive, unless you believe in magic, a witch couldn’t exist, the knights templar, bade to kill in the name of their Lord, then subsequently branded heretics for murder, the Spanish inquisition. Jesus was a man not born when the good book of lies says, if god were his father then he was not married to jesus mother and impregnated her, a sin in your book, against the wishes of jesus your churches spread the word of god for money, you sell bibles among other things in your churches, a passage in the bible states an angry Jesus strode into a church raving about this same thing happening in his time as the word is supposed to be freely given not sold. You say that satans most devilish trick is getting us to not believe, I say if such a being existed, his most devilish trick would be to write a book called the bible to trick millions of people into believing in God, who is actually the devil, that is a much greater trick, 100% more tricky that what you say his biggest trick is. Consider this.

    • http://None Chuck

      The Bible is not a scientific journal. It is the Living Word of God and is the medium of communication with God. It is God reaching us not us reaching God. Persons that center everything in themselves can not and will not understand God or the Bible.

      The Bible is new everyday to those that are not spiritually dead and self centered

  • http://None Chuck

    God can be proved just like anything else.
    Try Him, pray.