Bill Nye vs Ken Ham

At the Creationist Museum in Northern Kentucky, close by to my hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio, there was a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, a debate between Evolution and Creation.  The specific topic they were debating was if, "Is creation a viable model of origins in the today's modern scientific era?"

During the introductions I was surprised to hear that the creationist Ken Ham was actually trained in Biology and Education.  Also during Ham's intro  he claims that scientists can also be creationists, he claims that the term "science" has been hijacked by evolutionists/secularists.  He addresses ideas of "historical science" and "observational science".  He sees them as two separate entities.

When Nye begins his introduction, he begins with an anecdote about bow ties. He is incredibly charming, and personally pulls on my heart strings as I was a HUGE fan of his TV show when I was a kid. He talks about two opposing stories, Creation and Evolution, and comparing them, and then having the audience make their own call.  He addresses the debate topic as, "Is the creation model viable? Does it hold up?" Nye addresses Ham's distinction between historical science and observational science, that there can be no distinction.


In the second part of the debate, Ham claims that, "Creation is the only viable model of historical science in today's modern scientific era." He then presents interviews some creationists scientists, scientists who also also believe in creation. This is a weak claim to try to prove that creation is a viable option. He then speaks about how Christian scientists are persecuted.  This may all be true. I have no idea. But as someone who is not involved in science he is doing nothing to prove his point.

I had to stop watching after 30 minutes I was getting kind of annoyed. Ham's playing with the meaning of words was ridiculous and he seemed to talk around the actual topic.

I am not saying creationism is false and evolution is true. Personally I believe in evolution. I also am agnostic on days and an atheist on others, so I may be biased. But this whole discussion makes me think of a conversation we had in Karyn's thesis class and thinking about knowledge. Ham completely believes what he is saying, this is his set of beliefs that make up his knowledge. While Nye has his own set of beliefs that he believes is true, and this is his own knowledge. This makes me think that knowledge is intrinsically subjective.

http://gawker.com/the-highlights-from-bill-nyes-debate-with-creationist-1516466064