I greatly enjoyed the debate between #KenHam and #BillNye.
My thoughts are many, and probably too much for one post, so I'll try to summarize.
1) Both of them did a great job.
2) Ken Ham clearly presented the Christian worldview upon which the Creation model is based. He even presented the gospel 3 separate times!
3) Bill Nye The Science Guy presented a number of clear challenges to the creation / Biblical model as presented by the Creation Museum. He had some facts and good practical challenges.
a) Some of these were terribly unscientific and illogical (but presented in a way that would make people question). For example, the argument about rapid speciation. That's a valid argument, but no scientist in their right mind would accept an AVERAGE as a challenge. It should be presented as exponential with a maximum cap.
b) On the other hand, some were very valid challenges, that were not met satisfactorily by Ken Ham. Ham needed to answer the ice, tree, and fossil challenges.
4) Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye with two fundamental questions at the beginning, which Bill Nye NEVER responded to.
4.1.) According to the evolutionary model, how do you account for logic and the laws of nature?
For those who argue that Bill Nye won the debate, you have to come back to this question. Nye's arguments were based on logic and the laws of nature, but evolution cannot account for them. That's a serious problem in the evolutionary model.
4.2.) Name one technology that could not have been invented by someone with a Christian / Creation model.
Bill Nye kept insisting the entire debate that the creation model would destroy intelligence and progress, and is "unpatriotic". But he never answered this question. Even some of the scientists and technological advances he referenced were Christian creationists or developed by them.
4) Ken Ham spent a lot of time drawing clear lines between Observational Science and Historical Science. This is extremely important to his model. If people realize this difference, the whole "science" claim of evolution falls to pieces. Bill Nye simply denied it, without answering the challenges from Ken Ham. However, from an outside perspective, Ham spent too much time there, and it looked like a lame cop-out. (It isn't - it's fundamental, which is why he kept starting there.)
5) Unfortunately, for a person who relies entirely on science, Bill Nye stepped outside the rules of logic several times during the debate, engaging in logical fallacies and name-calling. This was unnecessary.
Remember this part? -- Bill Nye to Ken Ham: "My problem is you!"
But just the week before, Bill Nye was insisting that people remember "The debate isn't about our personal beliefs, but whether the model holds up to science." So ... I found it "troublesome" that he stopped challenging the model and started attacking personally.
6) Unfortunately, Ken Ham did not go head-to-head against the evolution model very strongly. He could have, but chose not to. The debate was about the models, and I would have really liked to see him present his battery of facts that an evolutionary model cannot explain. He has them. I've heard them. But he chose not to use them, and I think this really hurt the purpose of the debate.
7) Ken Ham kept his poise, professionalism, and cool the entire debate. Kudos. Bill Nye, on the other hand, resorted to emotional manipulation (the who patriotism bit), name-calling, insults (KY people are ignorant), and as I mentioned earlier, logical fallacies and attacking Ham personally. That hurt his argument.
8) Ken Ham had answers where Bill Nye did not. (Major score for the creation model)
Nye: I don't know. (Tells a joke).
Ham: We actually have a book that tells us why that is.
9) It's very difficult for two people to debate who don't accept the other's fundamental foundation. Lol. Ham's foundation is that God exists and the Bible is true. Nye's foundation is that if there is a God, he has nothing to do with the world, and the Bible is irrelevant. (He demonstrated that his fundamental foundation is NOT science, like he claims, because he dismissed out of hand a historical book that SHOULD be studied scientifically, even from someone from his perspective. He did not allow Biblical testimony to even be considered. He also stepped outside of reasonable science several times himself.)
This is why I think the person who presented the most challenging facts (Nye) appeared to have an upper hand. But Ham was hacking at the foundation, and Nye couldn't defend his.
10) Bill Nye kept claiming that the Creation model couldn't make and evaluate predictions. Ken Ham kept saying that it does. Ken Ham is right, and Bill Nye looked silly. Ken Ham gave over a dozen predictions in his presentation. He is also right in saying that even the predictions from the evolutionary model are actually based in the Creation model. (remember that question Bill Nye didn't answer?)
Nye kept insisting, but it stopped being scientific argument, and ended up crowd-control.
11) Additionally, Bill Nye ignored other things Ken Ham said, and kept saying, "I'm still waiting for you to ...", when in fact Ham had already addressed several of them. To be fair, there were some he did not reply to, and he should have.
12) Bill Nye waited until Ken Ham could not respond to offer his most insulting challenges. That's not even professional. That's just rude. Ham presented his questions to Bill Nye at the very beginning.
13) Both men believe their models dogmatically. Ken Ham basically said that his belief is fundamentally in the Bible and it won't change. He would not allow the Bible to be removed from his platform (this is valid).
When challenged about the dating methods in the Q&A, Bill Nye made it clear that he would not allow those methods to be removed from his platform (this is also valid).
14) To summarize, BOTH of them left the best challenges to their model unanswered. And both need to answer them.
