Ken Ham won the debate. Here’s how he did it.
- Because of how the debate question was framed: Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern Scientific Era? When I saw the actual question I was surprised. I sensed the question was tilted in Ken Ham’s favor and I was curious that Bill Nye allowed it to be asked in that manner. The question only requires a modest defense of viability in a model of origins. Not superiority, not exclusivity – viability. Why Bill Nye allowed this particular question became moot because he never addressed it, nor did he answer it. Ken Ham demonstrated that scientists who hold to creation as a model of origins function well in our scientific era, practically. Ken Ham also made the case that the creation model encourages scientific inquiry -and confidence in that process, philosophically.
- Because of how emotional and religious fervor obviously drives Bill Nye’s viewpoint. As I watched the debate it became apparent how devoted Bill Nye is to the religion of secular humanism. He speaks of “science” as though it were a pet or a grandchild with all kinds of wonderful potential and precociousness. It was really quite touching; but logically unpersuasive.
- Because of how Bill Nye was unable to define or defend words. He did not want to admit the difference between historical and observational science; he did not want to admit the difference between speciation and macro-evolution. He did not want to grant that creation is a viable model of origins.
- Because of how Ken Ham based his arguments on the Bible. Some thought he would downplay the pre-suppositional apologetics that Bible believers clearly hold. He did not. He presented a coherent world-view that explains the origin of sin, death and more importantly the hope of eternal life. Bill Nye presented his religion, too – an optimism based on no real facts – a religion that hopes life will get gradually better through scientific discovery.
See for yourself.
