Thursday Post

         I’ve heard about the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, but to actually watch it is something different. To start off, I didn’t particularly like the beginning of Ham’s 30-min. lecture. He was extremely repetitive, especially in drilling in the fact that Creationism can go hand-in-hand with science. Instead of actually proving that Creationism exists, he focused too much on qualifying the definition of science and lamenting how students are, in essence, forced to learn the Darwinian perspective in school. Additionally, these arguments were not even persuasive; I didn’t buy into what he was advocating. I understand why he would say that origin science is different from observational science, yet the example with the Earth is something I find unreasonable. He claims that just because you can’t look at the Earth and determine its age means that you can never figure it out. Besides only questioning Naturalism instead of proving Creationism, this example does not make sense in context to the world; if you cannot physically see what happened in the past, does that mean it just never happened? I hope we get to watch Bill Nye’s response in class tomorrow.