Bill Nye vs Ken Ham: Two Religious Nutjobs Arguing

By Chris Delamo of Red Pill Philosophy


Over half a million viewers tuned in on Tuesday night to the highly-anticipated debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham.

On one corner, there was the religious nutjob Ken Ham, who made the argument that evolution is a fraud, and that we can’t make scientific conclusions based on “past” evidence.

On the other corner, was the religious nutjob Bill Nye, who in traditional mainstream scientific fashion, sought to make the argument that reality is a purely material world made of matter, and that such a conclusion is NOT contradictory, paradoxical, or illogical.

Now, if you haven’t already recoiled and spewed whatever you’re drinking across your laptop or smartphone screen, then maybe you already know where I’m coming from.

But if you ARE currently wiping the soda off your monitor, then let me explain.

You see, mainstream science today, is a form of religion.  Now, in true scientific fashion, I would expect you to hear my argument, and examine the evidence I provide, and use that as the foundation for your conclusion, instead of exxing out the screen and close-mindedly never looking back.

A religion is a belief system that uses, at least to a certain degree, FAITH as a standard for believing in it.

Faith, of course, is the idea that a person should believe in something, even without personal, direct evidence for it.


Although mainstream science touts itself as being the Almighty Bastion of Evidence-Based Conclusions, the fact is that this is not entirely true (and the place where it is NOT true, is the most important one of all).

Now, yes: on an everyday level, science utilizes evidence to make many valid and beneficial conclusions, like using observable physics to launch rockets into outer space, or observing the patterns of molecules to determine the best cure for cancer.

All of these are signs of science’s continued commitment to observable evidence before making conclusions, and I whole-heartedly support it.

But the problem, is that where it matters most, science has DELIBERATLEY CHOSEN to take a massive leap of faith—a leap that, in many ways, INVALIDATES nearly the entire structure of modern scientific understanding.

Science’s leap of faith…takes us ALL the way back, to the beginning of the universe.

Here’s the leap of faith: mainstream science believes that something came from nothing.

You see, it is the general scientific consensus that we live in a purely material world, a world where matter exists INDEPENDENT of us.  If all consciousness life forms disappear, the physical world still exists.

Matter is the ruling element, and it is even used as the standard and measure of objective truth.  The laws of physics, deemed as infallible and constant, are viewed as the rigid structure of predictability from which science can attain empiricism, truth, and consistent results.

The problem with this belief, is that it includes an inherent contradiction—but don’t worry, if you don’t think about it too much, you’ll never realize the contradiction exists.

And today, that is what mainstream science is depending on: you NOT thinking very much about the belief system they want you to believe in.

You see, top scientists today who determine the culture and consensus, will tell you that we live in a purely materialistic world, where everything is defined and determined by mechanistic, deterministic causes and effects.

If something occurs in our reality, then science says there will be a rational, mechanistic explanation for it.

Drop a ball off the side of a building, that ball will fall because your hand let it go, and then the force of gravity continued to pull it down towards the earth, and when the ball hit the ground, the texture and weight of the ball decided how high it would bounce back up, etc.

EVERYTHYING in the universe can be understood and analyzed in this purely materialistic, mechanistic view of cause and effect –at least, that’s what mainstream science wants us to believe.

To the contrary, anything that occurs WITHOUT a rational, mechanistic explanation, is deemed nothing more than a hoax pending a REAL explanation.

Jesus curing the blind by waving his hand?

Nope, that’s not possible, there had to have been a materialistic, mechanistic explanation for how it worked (if it ever did work).  (by the way, I agree that Jesus didn’t cure the blind, highly questionable, like the entire Bible itself.

Moses parting the Red Sea with nothing more than a gesture of his hand?

Nope, that’s not possible.

Science is ALL ABOUT REQUIRING that everything in our universe MUST have a rational, mechanistic, causal explanation for everything that occurs.

Anything WITHOUT a cause and effect explanation is simply not possible.

And yet mainstream science wants you to believe that the entire universe appeared out of nothing.

What could be more AGAINST a mechanistic, materialistic, causal view of the world, than to believe that the entire physical universe appeared from nothing?

Something, from nothing, is INHERENTLY contradictory.

It’s like saying “up is down”, or “white is black”, or “2+2=5”.

Science is 100% opposed to such contradictory paradoxes, yet it’s willing to accept that the very origins of the universe came out of a paradox.

Something cannot come from nothing, according to mainstream science, because that is on par with a miracle or supernaturalism, like Jesus curing the blind or Moses parting the Red Sea.

Things happening without explanation, out of nowhere, are “miracles” and “not possible”, according to science, and thus should be doubted and ignored until legitimate evidence is provided.

And yet the VERY FOUNDATIONS of the entire modern mainstream scientific view is BASED ON a “miracle”—an unsubstantiated leap of faith—a paradoxically contradictory concept known as “the big bang” or “something from nothing.”

It IS a leap of faith to conclude that “something from nothing” is rational and conclusive.

Saying that our universe is purely material, deterministic, mechanistic, and causal (cause and effect), yet saying that it all came out from nothing, is akin to saying 2+2=5.

This is a total cop out by mainstream science—it is an insult to what science SHOULD stand for (open-minded skepticism) and to the critical thinking skills of the masses who simply accept what the high priests of science have told us to believe in.

Saying that the Big Bang is anywhere NEAR a sufficient answer for the origins of the universe is a complete lie and deception.

And because this leap of faith rests at the FOUNDATION of all modern scientific thinking, means that the ENTIRE modern scientific view is poisoned by this belief.

Like a skyscraper with a poorly built foundation, it will be shaky and vulnerable to collapse.

The same is true, with the mainstream scientific view of reality.

And in this way, science IS a religion.

It is a religion that believes we live in a purely physical world of causal mechanisms, yet simultaneously juggles the notion that the universe came from nothing (a NON-causal, non-mechanistic, non-deterministic concept).

So it’s incredibly humorous to me to see Bill Nye the Science Guy, debating Ken Ham the Christian, all while the general public believes this was a debate between a scientist and a religious person—science vs religion.

No, ladies and gentlemen, no: this was not science vs religion, this was religion vs religion.

Again, on an everyday level, science is DEFINITELY behaving like science because it sticks to observable facts to draw its conclusions.

But at the end of the day, the faith placed in our material world as being a consistent, non-contradictory standard for discerning what is, and is not, true, is simply a massive deception that relies on YOUR ignorance and non-thinking to be sustained.

Science is religion.


Liked the Article? Donate to Support More:

1) Pay Pal:

2) Bitcoin: My Address:  1NtSZ7SrVRm9z6KWURNiNPpNbgmoo774sK


CONNECT with Red Pill Philosophy:

- Facebook:

- Twitter:

- YouTube:

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Bill Nye vs Ken Ham: Two Religious Nutjobs Arguing

  1. Did you even bother to watch the debate? When Bill was asked how the universe started, and where ‘consciousness’ comes from, he responded with a humbling “We don’t know”. He went on to say that science is pursuing the answer to those questions, whereas religion, like the one Ken Ham subscribes to, presumes the answer to those questions from a book of fables written thousands of years ago.

    And your criticism of science is really just a criticism of our natural senses as human beings. This is a rather convenient argument, because it can be used at anytime to deny and reject any of science’s conclusions because you can just continue to assert that our senses are faulty or limited to perceive the universe.

    “There could be a land of unicorns and rainbows beyond this material world, but you scientists are just too dumb to see it!”


    Science makes theories, tests them, and maintains them until they can (ever) be refuted. Do you accept the theory of gravity and heliocentrism? If so, why? Why do you trust the science regarding those theories? Could it all just be a deception? Well, possibly, but that is unfalsifiable – Which is what your entire point is.

  2. Yeah, I saw the part where Bill Nye ponders the mystery of what came before the Big Bang, but the problem isn’t that we don’t know what came before, the problem is that INHERENT in a materialistic, mechanistic, causal view of the world, it is not possible to have an actual beginning or origin (explanation of this in a later paragraph).

    The greatest thing holding back Bill Nye, and the general scientific community, from a non-contradictory, non-paradoxical view of the world IS their religious belief that reality, first and foremost, MUST be materialistic / deterministic (matter being primary to all reality).

    On your point about unicorns, no, I am not providing the “god of the gaps” argument, as you propose, because I’m not using the ABSENCE of knowledge regarding what happened prior to the big bang to make my point.

    Instead, I am using the LITERAL inherent implications of what mainstream science believes to show the obvious fact that inherent in a materialistic /deterministic view reality, there cannot be a “beginning”, and reality is inherent paradoxical and contradictory.

    I hope I don’t have to re-explain why such a view is paradoxical, and why there cannot be a beginning. Just in case, here it is: If we live in a reality where matter is primary, and the universe operates in a materialistic and deterministic way, and all effects must have a cause (and vice versa), then there can be no beginning to the universe. The Big Bang Theory does not explain the true origins of how the universe arose (as Bill pointed out in the debate), it only explains as far as up to a few moments after, but if we do live in a materialistic world, then there MUST be something that CAUSED the big bang, and then something that caused the thing that caused the big bang, and something that caused the thing that caused the big bang, and on and on into a regressive infinity.

    There are 2 possibilities here: 1) the universe never had a beginning, and the “cause and effect” question goes on forever (which is NOT a conclusive answer as far as a materialistic view of the world is). Or 2) the universe just popped out of nothing, which is of course the same “something from nothing” miracle that I referenced in the article.

    But again, I am not against science: I am PRO science. In fact, I am more pro science than the general mainstream of science, because the mainstream of science today is limited by its lea p of faith, its belief and presupposition that we live in a purely, or fundamentally, matter-based reality.

    • That’s wrong- there are more possibilities than just the 2.
      Firstly, 2 possibilities: the universe never has a beginning or the universe had a beginning. You need to use absolutes; either the world popped out of nothing, or it didn’t, either the ’cause and effect’ question is real, or its not. (the universe never having a beginning is not the opposite the universe just popping out of nowhere- plus, since the universe includes all time, there was no ‘before’ or ‘out of nowhere’.

      I hope you are using the same definition as nothing as the scientists use (low levels of energy) as they are very unstable, and are constantly causing things to pop in and out of existence. (quantum physics)
      If you are using the term ‘nothing’ as not even low levels of energy (as the scientists use, but your own definition of nothing) you would first need to demonstrate that there even could be such a thing as ‘nothing’.
      Since you cannot demonstrate ‘nothing’ we may never even know if such a thing really exists- everywhere we have seen, even the ‘nothing’ has low levels of energy.

      • I’m not saying there are or are not more than 2 possibilities for the origins of the universe. I’m simply showing the contradictions in a materialistic worldview that exist when EITHER one is adopted.

        1) Universe ALWAYS existed (did not have a “beginning”): this is a contradiction of a materialist-science view of reality because according to the mainstream materialist scientific view, all events and matter in reality MUST have a causal mechanistic explanation. If the universe “always” existed, then it never “began”, and thus never had an original cause. This means there’s an ABSENCE of a mechanistic, causal explanation for the universe itself, which goes AGAINST the mainstream materialist view that we live in a purely mechanistic, causal reality.

        2) Universe DID have a beginning, it just popped out from “nothing”: again, this is a contradiction of the mainstream materialist science view that we live in a purely physical reality of mechanistic cause and effect. If all events and matter in the universe MUST have a causal mechanistic explanation, then it “popping out of nothing” contradicts that because that means it had no causal, mechanistic explanation.

        Now, you say there’s a “scientific” definition of “nothing”, which you say is “low levels of energy”.

        Okay, but the contradiction problem still exists even if you adopt that definition. To say “the universe came out of nothing (low levels of energy)” STILL requires, in a mechanistic mainstream materialist view of reality, that there be an explanation for where the “low levels of energy” came from, and once you find that out, you have to ask again, “where did the things that created the low levels of energy come from”, and then you have to ask again, “where did the thing that caused the thing that caused the low levels of energy come from”, and on and on. This is not ME demanding these questions: this is mainstream materialist mechanistic science demanding it. As long as we live in a purely material, mechanistic, causal reality (as modern mainstream science tells us), then you cannot actually have an original cause to the universe, because even when you think you found the “original cause”, there had to have been a prior mechanistic causal explanation for how that came into being, and so on and so forth. Again, these mandates of causality are not me speaking — these are the mandates of living in a purely material causal mechanistic reality, as mainstream materialist science mandates in its belief system.

        Alternatively, even IF the universe “always existed”, the contradiction still exists, because in a purely mechanistic material causal reality (as science demands), all events and matter MUST have a causal mechanistic rational explanation, but if the universe “always existed”, then that means it did not have an original cause, and to not have a causal explanation is not allowed in a mainstream materialist causal science view of reality. Things not having causes are “supernatural”, like Jesus curing the blind or walking on water or resurrecting after 3 days ( which I don’t believe in, by the way).

        It is an inherent contradiction in mainstream materialist science: the very DEMANDING that everything must have a causal mechanistic explanation EXCLUDES the possibility of there actually being a causal mechanistic explanation for the universe itself in the first place.

        And if you plan to respond by saying, “but there’s a difference between particles in the universe and the universe itself” (a commonly flawed argument I here), then I need you to specifically explicitly explain how, at one level in the universe, causality and mechanistic explanations are required in the universe, yet at a broader level, that requirement disappears. Specific explanations and logic are required to answer it, not vagueries designed to distract from the obvious contradiction.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s