On February 4th, Bill Nye will debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The question: “Is creation a viable model of origins?” Ham explains why he set up the event:
Because our ministry theme for 2013 and for 2014 is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids,” our staff thought that a debate on creation vs. evolution with a man who has influenced so many children to believe in evolution would be a good idea. Now, those of you who know me realize that I don’t relish public debates, so please pray for me. But this debate will help highlight the fact that so many young people are dismissing the Bible because of evolution, and even many young people who had grown up in the church decided to leave the church because they saw evolution as showing the Bible could not be trusted.
Jerry Coyne thinks Nye should stay away:
My worries are these. First, Nye is likely helping fund the Creation Museum and its mission to teach children Biblically based untruths about the origin and diversity of life. Had I been Nye, I would have suggested some other recipient of the money. Not only that, but why hold such debates in a Temple of Ignorance instead of on neutral ground? Second, Nye, by his very appearance, is giving some credibility to Ham and his views. After all, The Science Guy is known and beloved by many Americans as a popularizer of science. Why debase himself this way? My third worry, then, is this will look great on Ham’s curriculum vitae, but not so good on Nye’s. It is my practice not to debate creationists for reasons #2 and #3. Nye can attack creationism in his own talks and writings, as he has been doing with great effectiveness. Debates are not the way to help people accept evolution.
Tyler Francke is also strongly against Nye’s participation:
[A]ny modern-day public debate over the fundamental tenets of creationism is a sham, a mockery of real discourse. That’s because there is no scientific debate to be had over whether the earth is billions of years old, or whether life shows strong evidence of common descent, or whether a global flood occurred within the memory of modern man. These questions (particularly the first and third) were settled by the experts who are paid to study such matters long before any of the would-be “debaters” were even born.
Joe Hanson agrees the premise of the debate is flawed:
[W]ho is this going to convince?
Are there large numbers of people who are on the fence about whether evolution or creationism is the One True Way? And I mean really, truly “on the fence” in the sense that they could be tipped to one side by the words of either a hero of their elementary school afternoons and Tumblr memes and bow-tie-shipping, or … that other guy?
Chaplain Mike predicts the debate “will only serve to further separate a segment of very vocal Christians into their little cubbyhole of biblicism and obscurantism”:
By holding this “debate,” Ham continues to attempt to reinforce the impression that his opinion is the Christian worldview, that his organization is engaged in serious interaction with scientists, and that the way Christians should “engage and impact the culture” is through trying to defeat them publicly with arguments. And if you can stack the deck, hold the debate on your home field, and raise a lot of money for your cause in the meantime, all the better! Christianity’s reputation for hucksterism is taking a giant step forward with this event.
But James Kirk Wall thinks “the people against the debate are wrong”:
Bill Nye is absolutely right in doing this, and here’s why. If someone had a belief that human babies came from storks, we wouldn’t need a debate. If one third of the adults in this country believed that babies came from storks, as insane as it sounds, yes, we need to have the debate. And that’s where we are. … Bill Nye has an opportunity to valiantly promote science over creationist nonsense. I expect Bill is going to do very well.
Ham’s response to Nye’s video at the top of the page is here.
The Dish 