Bill Nye vs Ken Ham

367 Words2 Pages
Science vs. Creationism Knowing how long the debate was I started watching about thirty minutes in thinking that they would be in the middle of an argument already. Where I jumped in, Bill was addressing Ken’s claim that God had created a great flood that wiped out all of the earth except for Noah and his ark. Nye at first supported his claim that such a flood was not provable with modern science. He seemed to be using rational arguments to prove to the audience that Ken was wrong because of so and so, etc. Soon his agenda changed. I wasn’t aware that Bill and Ken were in the Midwest somewhere and he kept mentioning that we as Americans “, need science to continue advancing science and technology.” It was like he was trying to sell his views on science education. Ken on the other hand spent most of his time denying the claims of Mr. Nye. I noticed more than anything that a large claim that Ham brought up was that all of the answers that scientists are still searching for were in a book. I could see the bible (as Ham referenced) being a legitimate claim IF and only IF it were the only written religious text in the world. Basically, the logic behind this is that there are many religions in the world. Many of them have written text. To claim that the Christian bible is the truth is the ultimate example of ethnocentrism. There were many factual claims on both sides throughout the debate, but the Q/A portion really caught my attention. Especially the question that stated, “what, if anything at all would change your mind?” I think that this is where Ken really lost ground. By saying that nothing would ever change his mind about the Christian God being the one true God that created the universe, in my opinion was completely writing out the validity of all science. On the other hand Mr. Nye spouted numerous things that would change his mind instantly. The
Open Document