It was interesting to correlate the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham to the discussion this week about science vs religion in regards to evolution. Nye, an evolutionist, and Ham, a creationist, argued about the origin of the earth and life based on their beliefs. Ham argued that one should not assume history if they were not present to observe the events taken place. I feel that Ham dwelled on explaining his creationist perspective on the definition of science, emphasizing the importance of observational science, to the point where he started to sound redundant. I believe science is a mixture of assumption and reason, we do not necessarily have to be present in order to reach an accurate conclusion about something. Ham’s argument lacked any kind of scientific evidence suggesting the origin of a particular species. Instead, he used the flood and the book of genesis in the Bible to support his argument, but that only took him so far. Although we did not have enough time to hear Nye defend his evolutionist perspective on the matter, from what I have been hearing, his argument in the debate was stronger than Ham’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment