Comments about ‘Bill Nye debated the question 'How did we get here?' with creationist Ken Ham’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 4 2014 7:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Far East USA, SC

"He believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago by God and is told strictly through the Bible."

And when a kid with this upbringing gets to a geology class, or science class or learns about dinosaurs do they just come to believe that school is a waste of time?

How is this sort of religious indoctrination useful to anyone who has to compete in the real world?

The Hammer
lehi, utah

How about we look at theories and debate the different evidences and what merit they have. Both have answers that we just don't know or are lacking scientifically. Religiously we have our different views and these have answers that require us to have faith.

As far as Evolution, Why are there virtually no connecting animals (dead or alive) or other connecting plants that link us back together? Darwin stated we should find thousands of these linking life forms and yet I know of only two that can be quasi connecting species if you squint hard enough. Also the explanation of how chimps became more intelligent and evolved to earlier homo sapiens is a shot in the dark out how we became so sophisticated. And intelligence would tell us that a world with such details as ours distinguish us as a planet formed by a creator not by pure chance.

There is reason to doubt the theory of evolution as having the complete grasp of all the scientific principles that have brought about a planet as amazing as ours.

Danbury, CT

I don't get the either-or mentality. I believe what Science tells us about the age of the earth and evolution AND I believe God created the earth USING evolution. To ignore what we find in Geology and Paleontology is to paint ourselves into an indefensible corner. The Bible is not meant to be an exact recording of the earth's physical creation just as it is not an accurate depiction of chronological history.

I believe Science and I believe in God. I don't follow these people who say I have to choose. God is the ultimate Scientist. We need to be open and learn all we can about Science. In my view, Science and Religion are both about discovering and learning all we can and not about setting limits or creating dogmas.

Burlington, NC

Reading the news article posted by Deseret News, I feel that the writer of this article is themselves in favor of Creationism. How can anyone take this writer seriously, when it is very evident that they were trying very hard to back Ham and not tell the facts as they actually are. I hope that anyone who reads this post, have the intellect to read other posts on this topic that clearly show how Nye blew Ham out of the water in the debate, and show that the way this article is written, that it is without doubt, the nature of the story has conflicted with the way the writer believes, and therefore led the writer to dumb down this article in favor of their own religious belief.

Sugar City, ID

I have believed that evolution was the way that God populated the earth with life. There are some serious questions about evolution that I can't answer, however. The "Cambrian Explosion" of many different kinds of animal phyla without any fossil record of the animals that lead to these more complex animals was something that Darwin couldn't explain and I've not heard of any good post Darwinian explanation for it. Also, Darwin's evolution stressed a steady, slow evolution and the "Cambrian Explosion" was, in geological time, rapid. Also, I can't grasp how anything as complicated as a unicellular life form could just spontaneously develop. These developments violate the third law of thermodynamics. In effect, if you have organization, there must be an organizer. Intelligent design makes a lot of sense.

Cougar on The Hill
Midvale, UT

I don't understand how people can't believe both theories. The earth is millions of years old, and humans have been around for thousands of years ( more than 6,000). I'm sure there is some way that both evolution and creationism can come together.

play by the rules

re@ JoeBlow:

If creationism is untrue then why do you bother getting dressed in the morning. If evolution is true then why in the world are the apes not putting clothes on in the morning.

You will also note that creationists note that matter has existed for millions and billions of years. It is formed into intelligent design by the God of the Universe. It is a matter of faith on whether one accepts this or not. I accept it and wish no harm to those who do not.

Salt Lake City, UT

Are BYU students taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old? That dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time? That the Grand Canyon was carved in a period of days only a few thousand years ago in Noah's flood? That the universe is _not_ 13.7 billion years old?

Seriously, I want to know.


Some LDS scholars and authorities teach that the earth was organized from eternal matter near the center of our galaxy. Kolob, or the super massive dense "black" hole is at the center of our galaxy.

'Creation' took 6,000 years as measured in Kolob time. That calculates to 2,190,000,000 years. (365 x 1,000 x 6,000).
Calculated as 1 day near Kolob is 1,000 years present earth time.

After Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, the earth was moved from this center of 'creation' out into it's present location on a spiraling pinwheel from the galactic center with a dust cloud 'veil' obscuring our view of the celestialized exalted planets near Kolob.

Eldersburg, MD

A forum such as this will never increase proof of truth for either side and each argument. It is an exercise in stroking egos more than an event to foster sincerity with greater understanding, enlightenment, and the aquisition of knowledge.

The topics discussed will never have a resolution and is an apples to oranges comparison of an academic nature. For science cannot comprehend religion or diety without faith, and the inverse is true as well.

How many times does one see people from either side immersing themselves in the doctrine and practices of the other to prove for themselves what cannot be vicariously quantified in the least degree?

In reality, both science and religion / faith have furthered the betterment of humankind in their own ways and degrees. Though people like to believe they are mutually exlusive, such is an engineered pattern of contention that benefits no one. A person could spend an entire lifetime trying to prove their cause and disprove the other side, yet never really arrive at any sort of absolute truth.

Why not instead look for what both contribute to further the causes of humanity over the need to assert control over the perceived opposing viewpoints?

Provo, UT

I believe pretty strongly in God and the creationism. But, it doesn't take a rocket science to know that things are old on this earth, but so what. Last time I read the Bible or other scriptures on the matter, I noted the following: Genesis Chapter 1 vs 28: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..." I never argue about the age of the Earth, but the reality for me is that we are here to REPLENISH or as wiki defines it: "To fill or make complete again; add a new stock or supply to."

Of course this Earth is old, how old doesn't matter to me. Our first parents replenished something. That requires that it was something before. What is was doesn't really matter. The oldest writings go back about 5,000 years. If you don't express it, did it really matter? I know Dinosaurs existed, but existing isn't that big a deal. Subduing something is much much more. Our true history is about those who replenished and seek to subdue this earth. There is no conflict in my mind with science.


As I see it, the truth of the matter was represented by neither Nye nor Ham.

The Bible most certainly does NOT say that the earth was created 6000 years ago, so if that is what Ham believes then he is mistaken.

And if Bill Nye believes that the human mind is the product of random events, he is standing on quicksand as well, for there is no reasonable evolutionary justification for self consciousness, nor for the level of intelligence found in humans as it far exceeds what is necessary for survival. The evolution narrative contains many other fatal flaws.

Nye and Ham are both off the mark.


Science is there for us to understand the process. Religion is there to help us understand purpose. When trying to use religion to understand science you will fail because it is not the scope of religion to understand the process of everything. The same goes for using science to understand religion. It truly is comparing apple to oranges. There is evidence that both supports and refutes both sides of this argument of "where we came from." Having come to understand science better it has helped me appreciate religion more and gain more faith. Having gained more faith I have come to better appreciate science. The two can co-exist. You must have an open mind to both. Throwing your hands in the air and saying "6,000 years is it and there's nothing else" is the wrong way to go about doing it.

Far East USA, SC

"If creationism is untrue then why do you bother getting dressed in the morning. If evolution is true then why in the world are the apes not putting clothes on in the morning."

Did you even read my post?

I said nothing about creationism or evolution.

But, to teach that the earth is only 6000 years old dictates that we just throw science out the window in favor or religious teachings.

Your question makes no sense. Are you suggesting that people who believe only in evolution can not enjoy life and find meaningful purpose?


It's interesting to me how many on both sides of this debate try so desperately to incarcerate God in their own little box and tell Him he can't come out and then defend their positions as if they are the authoritative end.

Science and religion can be as compatible as one wishes them to be and I echo eastcoastcoug's comment, "Science and Religion are both about discovering and learning all we can and not about setting limits or creating dogmas."

My experience is that spiritual knowledge and secular knowledge can and often do converge quite nicely and I have no reservation expressing my Belief in God or my Faith in Jesus Christ and the Witness of the Holy Sprit.

Chris from Rose Park
Hartford, CT


That is not LDS doctrine. That may be the speculation of some LDS members, but it's not a LDS teaching. I just wanted to clarify that.

clearfield, UT

Until scientists can explain how something (matter) can come into existence from space (nothing), I'll go with the supernal explanation.

layton, ut

I listened to this entire debate. It was pretty weak, on both sides, to be honest with you. Ken Hamm insisted that there is a difference between "historical" science and "observational" science, while Bill Nye showed all of the scientific evidence for evolution and that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Hamm's whole argument was that the consensus of modern science believing that the earth is millions, if not billions, of years old is a belief, not a fact, because "you weren't there". While at the same time Hamm teaches kids that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together, he should be embarrassed of himself.

salt lake city, UT

Human Beings of every culture have always created some type of religon for social and personal needs. Science and the answers it provides will never fully satisfy a lot of us. Humans needs something spirtual, mythical for fulfillment. Bill Nye was debating more than creationism or evolution. He was attempting to debunk a core essence of what makes humans, human. An impossible task.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

I don't have the answers. Science talks about how the Earth was created. Religion is about why. The Big Bang theory and geology are good models to explain the things I see in certain realms. Religion applies to the realms. It is like in physics when we talked about electrons and protons we can sometimes talk about these things being particles with mass. At other times it is better to talk about them as waves and not particles. The reality is too complicated to explain and even to understand.

Science is good in its place, religion is good in its place. If I try too hard to have one fit into the other I reach what I consider to be odd conclusions: a 6000 year old earth or there is no God and therefore, there is no right and wrong, only convention, fashion and manners.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments