How Ken Ham Won the Debate
I watched the debate with great interest; I watched reactions to the debate with greater interest. I think Dr. Albert Mohler had the best immediate summary. Compliments and criticisms have not been hard to find from either side’s supporters or opponents. Some secularists were disappointed with Bill Nye; some Christians (especially old earthers) criticized Ken Ham.
Ken Ham won the debate. Here’s how he did it.
- Because of how the debate question was framed: Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern Scientific Era? When I saw the actual question I was surprised. I sensed the question was tilted in Ken Ham’s favor and I was curious that Bill Nye allowed it to be asked in that manner. The question only requires a modest defense of viability in a model of origins. Not superiority, not exclusivity – viability. Why Bill Nye allowed this particular question became moot because he never addressed it, nor did he answer it. Ken Ham demonstrated that scientists who hold to creation as a model of origins function well in our scientific era, practically. Ken Ham also made the case that the creation model encourages scientific inquiry -and confidence in that process, philosophically.
- Because of how emotional and religious fervor obviously drives Bill Nye’s viewpoint. As I watched the debate it became apparent how devoted Bill Nye is to the religion of secular humanism. He speaks of “science” as though it were a pet or a grandchild with all kinds of wonderful potential and precociousness. It was really quite touching; but logically unpersuasive.
- Because of how Bill Nye was unable to define or defend words. He did not want to admit the difference between historical and observational science; he did not want to admit the difference between speciation and macro-evolution. He did not want to grant that creation is a viable model of origins.
- Because of how Ken Ham based his arguments on the Bible. Some thought he would downplay the pre-suppositional apologetics that Bible believers clearly hold. He did not. He presented a coherent world-view that explains the origin of sin, death and more importantly the hope of eternal life. Bill Nye presented his religion, too – an optimism based on no real facts – a religion that hopes life will get gradually better through scientific discovery.
Ken Ham won this debate.
exceptionnoted 
Which is another reason that many on the evolution side so vehemently criticized Nye for even participating in the debate at all. They say that for him to do so was to implicitly validate Creationism as a legitimate viewpoint. That is something they seem terrified of.
If the evidence is sooooooooo stacked in their favor (as they claim), I don’t understand why they wring their hands over debates like this. Seems to me more the case that they don’t want everyone to see how hollow many of their arguments really are.
Agreed!