The Bigger Picture to Tonight’s Debate

If you haven’t seen it, the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on the question “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” will be up for the next few days, here’s a link:

Like any debate, whatever side you are on probably won. -Common comment on twitter

And that fact right there is the problem with Ken Ham’s position. No matter what actually happens, he is always right.

But in science, it doesn’t matter what you believe, what matters is what you can prove, and how you can prove it.

I’ll preface this by saying, I believe myself to be a very religious person. I also believe myself to be an at least somewhat reasonable person. This is why I so appreciated the fact that Bill Nye started by saying that millions of people are religious and do not refute science. I count myself as one of them.

Ken Ham, however, said two things tonight, and at least one of them should trouble you:

1) Any religion besides Christianity is wrong,


2) Any different interpretation of Christianity is wrong too.

Ladies & Gentleman, goodnight.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Bigger Picture to Tonight’s Debate

  1. Michael Snow says:

    Neither guy is well qualified to debate the science. It was a PR event for both. And Ham adds to what the Bible says.

    Here was a recent debate by real scientists.


    • tahirra1 says:

      Hi Michael, thanks for commenting! I agree neither were very good in the debate. Thanks for the link to the other debate, I’ll be sure to check it out. I also agree with what you said about Ham adding to what the Bible says. That was one of my problems with him: there is only room for his interpretation, not any other. So basically, what was said in the first link you sent “In the Beginning,” is wrong according to Ham. That is the problem: that only he can be right. How does he know what God’s day length is? Or how time worked then? Or if genealogies are a reliable signifier of time. What if another Christian disagrees with him? (That answer actually came up, and his answer was disturbing!) It seems to me (based on the one blog I’ve read so far) that we seem to agree science and religion don’t have to be at odds, depending on your interpretation of text.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s