Last week, a debate of epic proportions took place over the creationism vs. evolution issue. Bill Nye the Science Guy, who we’ve known and loved since grade school when he taught us that “science rules” took the floor against Ken Ham, the President/CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.
I’ll be honest. I’m biased towards Bill Nye’s evolution approach, just as many viewers were likely biased towards the New Earth Creationism that Ham stood by. I was expecting Ham to be a bit of a loony, which is how he’s portrayed in Bill Maher’s “Religilous”. Still, going in I tried to keep an open mind, and was pleasantly surprised at the psuedo-logic with which Ham presented his argument. While I was expecting something silly from the man who claims humans and dinosaurs were hanging out together six thousand years ago, he actually raised a good point: we weren’t there. We don’t know for certain what happened. Of course, there’s boatloads of scientific evidence pointing to the contrary, but he’s right, there’s no way to be 100% sure that the fossils in the Grand Canyon are not from the biblical flood.
So instead of quoting genesis and claiming that’s science, Ham is presenting a case that the account of creation in the bible is the only scientifically feasible explanation. It’s different, and it’s slightly more logical, but I still think Bill Nye won the debate.
His side of the argument revolved around simple explanations. For instance, the age of a tree. Based on the rings within the trunk, that tree was older than Ham claimed the earth was. Another strong point of Nye’s argument is that an approach to science through religious faith does not have the same ability to predict things in the natural world as Nye’s approach. For instance, evolutionary scientists can predict the existence of creatures based on missing spots in the fossil record, while creationists cannot make the same prediction since they come from a place of already knowing. As Nye clearly demonstrates, the evolutionary approach is more beneficial to scientific discovery, which I believe is reason enough to favor it.
Whatever side you fall on, be sure to check out this fascinating debate online!