Refound, longer answer that people have sought after for a long time. Tonights question is the following. Creation of viable model of origins in today last modern scientific era . Our welcome extends to hundreds of thousands of people who are watching on the internet. We are glad you have joined us. By 70 mediad representatives from many of the worlds great news organizations. We are glad to welcome our debaters. Mr. Bill nye. [applause] towe had a coin toss determine the order. Speak first. D to nyes website describes him as a comedian, author, and inventor. He won seven National Emmy awards for writing and producing the show. He won 18 emmys in five years. In between creating the shows he wrote five kids books about science including the latest title. Bill nine is the host of three television series. His program airs on the science channel. Frequently appears on interview programs to discuss a variety of topics. He serves as executive director of the Planetary Society. The Worlds Largest space Interest Group and is a graduate of cornell. Mr. Ken ham is the president and cofounder of answers it in genesis, the bible defending organization that holds the authority of the scriptures from the first verse. He is the man behind the popular high tech Creation Museum where we are holding this debate. The answers in genesis website is well trafficked. He is a bestselling author, a much in demand speaker, and the host of the daily radio feature covered carried on 700 plus stations. At harvard in the 1990s. This he is a native of [indiscernible] to go first soed you will be first with your fiveminute Opening Statement. Good evening. Not everyone watching this debate will necessarily agree with what i have to say. I hope you enjoy me saying it anyway. The topic is this. Is creation of viable model of todays scientific era . When this was announced there were lots of statements like this one from the Richard Dawkins foundation. Scientists should not create debate creationists. Right here there is a gross misrepresentation. We are seeing people being indoctrinated to believe that creationists cannot be scientists. It is part of the secularists hijacking the word science. Am a professor of Engineering Design. I publish over 130 papers on the science of design, engineering, and biological systems. I find the evidence supports creationism as the best explanation to origins. Here is a debacle creationist and creator. Ntist the guide tofine origins and we need to define science. I want to concentrate on dealing with the word sign. I believe it has been hijacked by secularists. Silent k at science, there are different types of knowledge. There is experimental, observational science using the Scientific Method. That is what produces our technology. Computers, spacecraft, jet planes, Smoke Detectors, dna, antibodies, medicine and vaccines. All scientists, creationists or evolutionists, have the same observational and experiment with science. Here is an atheist who is a great scientist. One of the first researchers to sequence the human genome. Or dr. Raymond, a man who invented the mri scanner and revolutionized medicine and is a Biblical Creationist. Evolution has nothing to do with developing technology. When were talking about origin, we are talking about the past, our origins. Whether it is molecules to man or a creation account. Talking about the past, we like to call that origins or historical science, knowledge concerning the past. Here at the creationist museum, we make no apology about the fact that our origins are based upon the biblical account of origins. Now, when you Research Science textbooks used in Public Schools we found this. By and large the origins of historical science is based upon mans idea about the past. For instance, the ideas of darwin. Our Research FoundPublic School textbooks use the word science for observational science and historical science. They arbitrarily defined science as naturalism. They present molecules to man evolution as fact, imposing the theory of naturalism or atheism on generations of students. I assert that the word science has been hijacked by secularists, teaching evolution to force the naturalism on generations of kids. Teaching that all life develops from natural processes from promoting a forms, which has great bearing on how we deal with life and death. It is hard for many to accept that when we die it is over. The bible gives a totally different account of origins. The meaning of life, our future. That god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. It is creation is creation a viable model of origins in todays modern era . I say the debate is two different accounts of origins of believe, and creation is the only viable science confirmed by observational science in todays modern scientific era that is era. That is time. I have the unenviable job of being the timekeeper. Like the referee in football you dont like. If one of our debaters runs over, i will stop him in the name of keeping it there. Mr. Ham thank you for your comments. Now its mr. Nye here. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here. I appreciate you including me in your facility here. Looking around the room, i see just one bow tie. Is that right . Just one . Theres two, thats great. I started wearing bow ties when i was young in high school. My father, his father showed him. Theres a Story Associated with this which i find remarkable. My grandfather was in the rotary and he attended a convention in philadelphia and even in those days at the turn of the last century, people rented tuxedos. The tuxedo came with an untied bowtie. He didnt know how to tie it. He took a chance, he went to the hotel room next door, knocked on the door, excuse me, can you help me tie my tie. The guy said sure, lie down on the bed. So, my grandfather wanted to have the tie on. Wasnt sure what he was getting into. He said to him laying on the bed, the guy tied a perfect bowtie knot. Quite reasonably, my grandfather said thank you. Why did i have to lie down on the bed . The guy says, i am an undertaker. Thats the only way i know how to do it. That story was presented to me as a true story. It may or may not be. But it gives you to something to think about and remember. Here tonight, we are going to have two stories. We can compare mr. Hams story to the story from what i will call the outside, from mainstream science. The question tonight, does ken hams creation model hold up. Is it viable . Let me ask you all, what would you be doing if you werent here tonight . Thats right, youd be home watching c. S. I. C. S. I. Petersburg. I think its coming. On c. S. I. , there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. These are constructs unique to mr. Ham. We dont normally have these anywhere in the world except here. Natural law apply in the past apply now. Thats why they are natural law. That is why we embrace them. Thats how we nail these discoveries that enable all of this remarkable technology. C. S. I. Is a fictional show and it is based absolutely on real people doing real work. When you go to a crime scene and find evidence, you have clues about the past. You trust those clues and embrace them and move forward to convict somebody. Mr. Ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything we observe in nature, a 500 foot wooden boat, ages you keepers for 14,000 individuals and also. Individual animals. Every land plant in the world underwater for a full year. I ask, is that reasonable . Youll hear a lot about the grand canyon which is a remarkable place. It has fossils. The fossils in the grand canyon are found in layers. Theres not a single place in the grand canyon where the fossils of one type of animal crossover into the fossils of another. In other words, when there was a big slot on the earth you would expect drowning animals to swing up swim up to a higher level. Not any one of them did. Not a single one. If you can find evidence of that, you can change the world. Now, i just want to remind us all. There are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious. Who get enriched almond who have a wonderful sense of community from their religion. They worship together. They eat together. They live in their communities and enjoy each others company. But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the earth is somehow only 6000 years old. That is unique. Heres my concern. What keeps the United States ahead, what makes the United States a world leader is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to choose eschew science, eschew the process and try to divide science into into an observational science, historic science, we are not going to move forward. We will not brace natural law, we will not make discoveries and we will not invent and innovate and stay ahead. If you ask me if ken hams creation model is viable, i would say no. It is absolutely not viable. Stay with us over the next period and you can compare my evidence to his. Thank you all very much. [applause] very nice start by both of our debaters here. Now each one will offer 30 minute illustrated presentation to fully offer their case for us to consider. Mr. Ham, youre up. The debate topic was, is creation a viable model of origin in todays scientific era . I made a statement, creation is the only viable model confirmed by observational science in todays modern era. I say what we need to be doing is defining our terms. Particularly three terms science, creation, and evolution. I discussed the meaning of the word science. What is meant by experimental, observational science, briefly. That both creationists and evolutionists can be scientists. I mentioned an atheist who is a great scientist, one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome. Also dr. Raymond damadian, who invented the mri scanner. I want you to meet a Biblical Creationist who is a scientist and inventor of i am raymond damadian, a young earth creation scientist who believes god created the world in 624hour days, just as recorded in the book of genesis. By gods grace and devoted prayers of my godly motherinlaw, i invented the mri scanner in 1969. The idea that scientists who believe the earth is 6000 years old can do real science is simply wrong. Hes most adamant about that. He revolutionized medicine, hes a Biblical Creationist. I encourage people like that. Let me introduce you to another Biblical Creation scientists. My name is danny faulkner. I received my phd in astronomy from indiana university. For 26 years i was President University at the university of South Carolina lancaster, where i held the rank of professor emeritus. Upon my retirement in january 2013, i joined the Research Staff at answers in genesis. Im a stellar astronomer. That means by primary im interested in stars. I am interested in the study of eclipsing binary stars, and i published many materials in the literature, including the astronomical journal and the observatory. There is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation. I mentioned dr. Steward in dr. Stuart burgess, professor of Engineering Design in england. He designed a doubleaction gear set of the robotic arm on a very expensive satellite. If that had not worked, the whole satellite would have been useless. Yet dr. Burgess is a Biblical Creationist who believes, as i believe. Think about this for a moment. A scientist like dr. Burgess who believes in creation as i do is a small minority in the scientific world. Lets see what he has to say. Many of my colleagues are not sympathetic to the treasonous you point creationist viewpoint. They are afraid to speak out because of criticisms they would get from the media and the atheist lobby. Thats a real problem today. We need to have freedom to be able to speak on these topics. I just want to say that nonchristians scientists are really borrowing from the christian worldview anyway to carry out their experimental observational scientist science. When theyre doing observational science they have to assume the laws of logic, they have to assume the laws of nature. They have to assume the uniformity of nature. If the universe came about by natural processes, where did the rules of logic come from . Did they just pop into existence . I have a question for bill nye. How do you account for the laws of logic and nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of god . In my Opening Statement i discussed a different type of science or knowledge, origin or historical science. There is a confusion here, a misunderstanding here. People by and large have not been taught to look at what you believe about the past as different from what you observe in the present. You dont observe the past directly. When you think about the creation account, we cant observe god creating. We cant observe the creation of adam and eve. We are willing to admit believes about the past. What you see in the present is very different. Even some Public School textbooks sort of Technology Difference between historical and observational science. Here is an Earth Science textbook used in Public Schools. We read this the aim of historical geology is to understand earths long history. We are talking about historical science trying to establish a timeline about a number of physical changes that occurred in the past. We studied physical geology before historical geology because we first must understand how earth works. In other words, we observe things in the present and then were assuming thats always happened in the past. We will try to figure out how this happened. There is a difference between what you observe and what happened in the past. Let me illustrate it this way. If bill nye and went to the a grand canyon, we can agree there is the sandstone and the shale and the boundary. We can agree on that. You know what we will disagree on, we can analyze the minerals, we would disagree on how long it took to get there. None of the sandstone or shale there is a supposed 10million gap there. But i dont see a gap. That might be different to what bill nye would say. Theres a difference between what you actually observe directly and your interpretation. When i was at the Goddard Space Center a number of years ago, i met creationists and evolutionists both working on the hubble telescope. They agreed on how to build the telescope. They disagreed on how to interpret the data the telescope obtained in regard to the age of the universe. We could talk about lots of other things. For instance, i have heard bill nye talk about how a Smoke Detector works using the radioactive element americium. We agree how radioactivity in naples that to work. If they will use radioactive elements and talk about the age of the earth, you have a problem because you were not there. We have to understand we could agree whether youre creationist or evolutionist on, we will disagree on how to interpret the origin of mars. There are some people that believe there was a global site on mars and no liquid water on mars. We will disagree on the interpretation of origins. Not from an observational standpoint, we only have the present. Creationists and evolutionists both work on medicines and vaccines. It doesnt matter all scientists have the same experimental or observational science. I have a question for bill nye, can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in molecules to man evolution . Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence. Bill nye and i have the same grand canyon. We dont disagree on that. We would have the same fish fossil and the same dinosaur and same animals, same humans and same dna and radio active decay. We have the same universe. Actually, we all have the same evidences. Its not the evidences that are different. It is a battle over the same evidence in regard to how we interpret the past. You know why that is . It is a battle of world views and starting points, a battle over philosophical worldviews and starting points of the same evidence. I admit my starting point is god is ultimate authority. If someone doesnt accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority. Thats really the difference. I have been emphasizing the difference between historical origins science about the past when you werent there. We need to understand, we werent there. Or experimental or observational science using five senses in the present, the Scientific Method, what you can directly observe, test, and repeat. Theres a difference between the two. Thats not whats being taught. Thats why kids arent being taught to the think critically and correctly about the origin issue. Its also important to understand when talking about creation and evolution, both involve historical science and observational science. The role of observational science can be used to confirm or otherwise ones historical science based on ones starting point. When you think about the debate topic and what i affirmed concerning creation, if our origins are historical science based on the bible account of origins is true, then they should be predictions from this that we can test using observational science. There are. For instance, based on the bible, wed expect to find evidence concerning an intelligence confirming and intelligenceproduce life. The bible said god made animals after their kind and find each implying each kind produces its own, not that one kind produces another. You would expect to confirm one race of humans, because we all go back to adam and need, biologically that would mean one race. Evidence confirming the tower of babel. Evidence confirming a young universe. I can go through all of those, but a couple we will look at briefly. In the Creation Museum,