How about that debate last Tuesday, eh? It was the debate that people actually want to spend three hours of their lives watching; a debate that is not about politics, healthcare, presidential campaigns or leading a change. No, this one was a repeat of one humanity has been having for centuries, the age-old faith versus science debate.
Bill Nye the Science Guy, an astronomer and an evolutionist, went up against the “well regarded” Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis and a creationist who thinks the first man was made out of mud, to discuss whether the six-day creation model is scientifically viable.
Mr. Nye started the debate with an explanation of the Big Bang, which occurred billions of years ago. He continued by stating that evolution is how humans became the way they are now and that evolution should be taught in schools as an accepted fact until further scientific data would prove otherwise. On the other side, Mr. Ham was an advocate for the creation story. He said that God created the Earth in six days, and the Earth is only 6,000 years old and yadda yadda yadda. And, frighteningly enough, he wants us to teach his creation story in schools as fact. And I ask: Whose creation story? The Apaches? The Huns? The Greeks? The Taoists?
This debate was a landslide. Ken Ham walked in totally unprepared; he had no facts, only stories. He came in thinking the power of the Lord would wield him victory and he struggled to answer some very important questions. For instance, Nye repeatedly asked Ham to give evidence of how creationism could be used to predict any kinds of patterns in the future. Ham never answered.
The science guy, on the other hand, came to the debate ready to play. He brought with him some hard-core facts that supported the Big Bang theory, like the observation of stars moving away from each other (according to Edwin Hubble, light received from galaxies is red-shifted, indicating that they are moving away from us; the greater distance between us and the galaxy, the greater the red-shift. This can be explained by the expansion of every galaxy outward). Nye also challenged Ham’s theory of how natural law had changed only 4,000 years ago with no record of the development, while existing pyramids exceed that age.
The debate gave me a renewed sense of respect for Nye. During his verbal battle with Ham, Nye, apart from being factually correct, stated numerous times that he has no problems with people practicing a religion, that many have benefitted their community and church with their beliefs. These statements helped him to not alienate his audience and gain supporters.
Ham, however, continually exasperated me. While remaining dead convinced that evolution is false, he firmly held onto his belief that the Earth cannot possibly exceed 6,000 years, and he also chose to ignore hard, factual evidence that it has existed for billions of years. Another thing that troubled my rational thinking was when Ham was asked if he thought the entire Bible should be taken literally. He went off on some tangent about how it depends on what is meant by literally. Really? In today’s vernacular how many definitions are there for the phrase, “taken literally?” So I took that as a yes. Yet, he hemmed and hawed about other parts of the Old Testament being taken literally. Another failure on Ham’s part was that he assumed that we would take his word for all of the stories he told because … well … the Bible says it is so. Nye also caught this and called him out on it repeatedly.
Nye had many good comebacks that night. The one that I absolutely died for was when he said, “It’s very reasonable, perhaps, to you that Noah had superpowers and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members, but to me, this is not reasonable. And, I have enjoyed magic.” I was literally rolling. Yes, literally. (See how I did not avoid the word “literally”?).
Overall, I’m just grateful that a debate on a topic such as this has been given the attention it deserves. Both sides made it an interesting debate and at the same time, they sparked many ideas, thoughts and even arguments. And honestly, who doesn’t enjoy a good intellectual argument? And to the winner, Bill Nye, I salute you, good sir. Well done.
Now, for those of you who spent your Tuesday evening not watching this debate, I suggest that you rush to the nearest computer. Yes, the first minutes of rambling Ken will frustrate you and cause you to want to hurl objects at the screen, but wait for Bill Nye will make his appearance, followed by the engaging counter-arguments and questions. The debate can be found at various sites including debatelive.org and Youtube. I challenge you to watch it, think about it and then decide: Who provided a more compelling argument?
Nolan Beilstein (beilstein
