Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Normally I would not encourage you to watch a video clip of HBO TV’s anti-God commentator Bill Maher. And I am reluctant for many reasons—but I thought that with the appropriate warning I should bring this clip to your attention, particularly his comments in regard to the recent debate between Bill Nye “the Science Guy” and me.
First, be warned that an expletive is used twice in this eight-minute video clip. Even so, because it’s now on the cultural radar, I believed I needed to comment on it. You can avoid the first expletive by starting the video at the 30-second point. The other expletive is used at the 4:30 mark. You can watch the interview of Bill Nye by Bill Maher on YouTube.
From :30 to :41 seconds in the interview, Maher referred to me and his Religulous movie (a blasphemous, vulgar movie he produced a few years ago). For the truth about Maher’s conduct when he was here at AiG for an interview (his “morality” is whatever he decides for himself), read these accounts of how Maher deceived AiG to achieve his own ends:
Changing His Tone
First, you might recall that on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show Last Word on the evening of the debate, Nye stated at the 1:30 point that he had “respect for Mr. Ham and his beliefs.”
Also, on ABC TV’s Nightline program about the debate, Nye stated that the two of us were “more alike” than different. When the correspondent Dan Harris asked the two of us if we were seeing the birth of a friendship, Nye stated that he has a “mutual respect for colleagues” who hold passionately held beliefs.
But on the HBO interview with Bill Maher on Friday, Mr. Nye’s tone had changed quite a bit. At the :44 second point, when Nye was asked about having some “respect” for me, he then caved in to Bill Maher and stated, “If I said that, I may have misspoken.” He then clarified that he really meant he respects my “passion.” Nye went on to say that I’m not a charlatan, as he thought I was—but admitted that I really do believe what I presented (watch up to the 1:10 point).
What is sad to me is not what Bill Nye thinks about me. What I found really unfortunate is that after presenting my stand on God’s Word, there were a number of Christians who were more complimentary of Bill Nye than of me because Bill Nye was defending evolution and billions of years. You would think these Christians would be thankful that I presented the gospel at least three times during the debate. But it seems these Christian critics are more concerned about what I believe in Genesis than about people hearing the gospel.
It’s interesting—some Christians criticized me for not dealing with those items Bill Nye brought up, or for not detailing more “evidences” in my debate presentation. However, such evidential arguments have been refuted over and over again over the years. Our science faculty and outside advisers agreed that my debate strategy should be to concentrate on showing that the evolution/creation issue was a philosophical battle over worldviews, and that they were dependent on two different starting points (God’s Word or man’s word). I also decided to teach the difference between historical and observational science. Bill Nye has totally ignored these arguments—he doesn’t want to deal with them at all. Frankly, he doesn’t want to admit that he has beliefs that affect how he looks at evidence. I also wanted to gently but firmly challenge Bill Nye with the truth of God’s Word and the gospel—and I did this.
I’ve had many people thank me for this strategy, as it opened their eyes to the true nature of science and the true nature of the battle. But sadly, even many Christians still don’t get it!
In fact, I’ve said over and over again that I do not like being called a “young-earth creationist,” but I want to be called a “biblical creationist” instead. I’m not a young-earth creationist first and foremost—I’m a biblical creationist first of all. What I believe about the young age of the earth comes out of taking the Bible as written. And I’ve said numerous times over the years that the age of the earth, for example, is not a salvation issue but an authority issue.
By the way, here is the article I alluded to in the debate that answers the ice layers claim that Bill Nye brought up: “Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?”
Here is an AiG article about tree ring dating and whether it’s proof that the earth is supposedly older than 6,000 years: “Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology”
Also, our “Get Answers” section on the AiG website has a topic on young age evidence that provides a number of articles dealing with the issue of the age of the earth and the universe.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,