On February 4, Bill Nye (the science guy) and Ken Ham (founder of The Creation Museum) held a debate in Ham’s museum in Kentucky involving the topics of evolution, faith, and the appropriateness of creation models in modern scientific discourse. The outcome of the debate was, unsurprisingly, wholly expected. Nye toed the scientific line of argument about evolution while Ham attempted to rationalize proof for Biblical events through anecdote and reliance on The Bible itself. At no point in the debate were either participants willing to cede points in each others favor, as they were clearly not interested in listening to each other.
Did I expect them to? Not really. The problem surrounding the debate stems from the fact that this particular topic of discourse has firmly entrenched sides that are equally uninterested in hearing each other out. The purpose of the debate, therefore, is lessened through the indifference of the opposing sides. Instead, both Nye and Ham used the debate as a platform for their own particular agendas: Nye for science education and Ham for spreading the word of God.
A debate such as this cannot be won. The individuals who already supported Ham going into the evening declared that he won afterward. Those who supported Nye believed that he won.
There was one true victory here, however. Allowing such a debate to take place is a victory for discourse in this country regarding difficult issues. Even though Nye and Ham were diametrically opposed, they must be credited by at least agreeing to the debate in the first place. By allowing themselves to be put into the limelight, Nye and Ham showed that there is room in this world, even between the most opposed, to have reasonable discussions about contentious topics.
Regardless of whether you agree with one side or another, you should take note of the process and appreciate, at least, that an attempt was made.
Leave a Reply