re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]
Idiot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Ken Ham.
And bigot is about the nicest word I'd use to describe Bill Nye.
My first question would be, how far do people expect to get in a philosophical discussion that begins with insults? Not far, I hope.
I'm not one of those people who believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, but what is so unbelievable about the prospect of a creative intelligence?
We have evolved and are still evolving, are we not?
Isn't it possible that life exists (or has existed) on other planets? There are trillions of them after all, many of them just like ours.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the life on other planets has also evolved or is still evolving, just like us?
Isn't it reasonable to assume that life on other planets could have evolved into something that is beyond our understanding?
If you could create life, would you? We already can create and manipulate life, and we are little more than primates dragging our knuckles through the mud.
Isn't it fair to assume that another being with the ability to create life would use that ability?
I know, there are multiple conclusionary leaps involved here, but which part is absolutely unbelievable? Which part is arguably impossible?
I don't agree with Ham's vision of the universe, nor do I agree with Nye's, but it's hard to find common ground when you are arguing from the two extreme ends of the debate.