By KATHERINE BAKAITIS
Staff Writer
The famous Bill Nye “The Science Guy” from all of our middle school science classrooms went head-to-head with young-Earth believer and Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham in a grand showdown where evolutionary evidence ended up reining supreme. The debate, which took place February 4th at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, was centered on the question of how the universe came to be, and not about the existence of a God or not. More specifically, “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”
As an agnostic and strong believer in the power of scientific evidence, I went into the debate with a reasonably biased view. Already knowing that most people in the U.S., whether they are religious (Christian) or not (non-believers/other belief), believe in evolution, I knew that creationist Ken Ham was doomed from the start.
Right out of the gate, the pair was already disagreeing on what should have been a simple term- “science”. Ham maintained a distinction between “historical science” and “observational science,” claiming that evolution is flawed since we didn’t actually “witness” evolution taking place. Ham focused on the Bible as a more appropriate piece of reference than the actual physical evidence found in nature. Bill Nye made it a point to dispute the Bible as a legitimate source of evidence since it has been re-written and interpreted over millennia in multiple different languages. Nye accurately compared the Bible to a game of “telephone,” where the first person says one thing and it comes out a completely different sentence by the time it gets to the last person. The Science Guy also called Ham out on his statement about how only certain parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others not so much, claiming that you can’t take the parts of the Bible you prefer and fit them as part of your (Ham’s) argument.
Ken Ham at some points lacked just plain common sense, especially when it came to the story of Noah’s Ark. When Nye drew up the question on how the animal’s health was maintained for a whole year on that boat, Ham explained that all the animals were herbivores on the ark so they wouldn’t eat each other. I’m sorry to report that that is a senseless answer, Mr. Ham. Speaking of which, as harsh as it may sound, not every theory should be treated as if they’re on the same level, and the whole Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate proves such that. Bill Nye forwarded proven and even obvious evidence when backing his cause in retaliation of Ham’s. I personally cannot stress enough the importance of facts and actual proof when trying to prove a point, because when you can’t back your argument, it should be taken as invalid. On the other hand, just because the creationist belief is flawed and has as much holes in it as Swiss cheese, it doesn’t necessarily disprove the existence of a divine creator. The larger issue I have with all of this is that when people don’t comprehend something that’s too complex beyond their understanding, they tend fill in the gaps with excuses of God. Over the years, technology and new-found evidence has filled in those gaps and disproved most of the unknown, but it’s the larger picture – what caused the big bang – that’s dragging down the evolutionary scientific cause. Just because evolution-backing scientists leave an unknown hole blank, it doesn’t mean their case is any less plausible.
The history of scientific discovery, and even the rate at which these discoveries are occurring, proves beyond doubt that the human race, with new knowledge and adaptations, is expanding faster than ever and that the creationism “theory” will become mythology. Religion has been a significant part of the human way of life, so much so that it has become imbedded into our brain as a natural way of thinking, even almost as a second nature. It’s perfectly understandable that people will fight back when what has been the norm for thousands of years is questioned by a newer, more plausible theory.
Some questions were still plaguing me and weighing heavily on my mind, even after the debate. What about other religions’ views on how the world was created? Despite world popularity, what makes Christian beliefs on creationism and how the universe operates more credible than say the Muslim or Buddhist faith? What bothered me most was probably Ham’s same response to almost every brick wall he hit: “Well that’s what the Bible says, so it must be true.”
Contrary to popular belief, Bill Nye is not some clownish entertainer; he is a professional scientist who gears his knowledge towards educating children on the importance of science and critical thinking. Most of us owe our fundamental science education to that man. During the debate, Nye managed to focus on the negative implications the American society and economy would experience if we do not educate and influence young minds about science. Ham, being an Aussie, didn’t touch the subject. The biggest difference between the two men was displayed when they were both asked: “what, if anything, would change your minds?” Ham’s response was a stubborn “nothing,” while Nye’s was “evidence”.
While we all have our own opinions and theories about the beginning of time and the origins of life, we are incapable at this time of confirming any one theory in its entirety. When it’s said that not all theories should be treated equally, it’s mostly because of evidence (or lack-thereof) coming into play. Just because a story is passed down through generations in written form, doesn’t give it enough credibility to hold true today, especially with today’s advancements.
