The question behind this debate is “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

The master debaters started the show by each giving a 5 minute introduction.  Ken Ham started out with some asinine statement about having an Australian accent.  Bill Nye started out by telling an unrelated story about bow ties.

Next, both Nye and Ham are given half hour segments to present their cases on the question “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

Notice a theme here?  One  of constantly repeating the title of the debate?

Yeah.  They did that a lot. A whole friggin’ lot.

Ham’s argument in a nutshell is that being a Scientist is not the opposite of being a believer.  He tries to separate the ideas of observational science(that which we see and do to understand the Universe) and historical science(the model that we build to understand past events.)  Most of his points are not invalid given that you accept the Bible as a true historical document.

Nye does a great job of sticking to the specific topic without venturing into insulting the bible.  He lays out scientific principles to show why the universe is believed to be billions of years old.  His argument on Noah’s Ark is a little shaky, asking his audience to simply understand how unlikely it would be.  His plea to Kentucky and similar states is simply to make sure their students are exposed to science in their education.

I encourage you to watch the debate yourself but my stance is this;  If you are not open to be proven wrong, your belief is not what you claim.  I’m a physicist and a Christian.  It’s possible to find your own belief outside of a dichotomy such as ‘evolution vs. creationism.’  But also remember, as 70% of Ken Ham’s slides will show you, even men who do great things in Science can be idiots.

It is the greatest of human tenets that we are curious.  So, don’t take anyone else’s word for it.  Discover it for yourself.