As a Biblical Creationist, I will go on record as saying that I think Bill Nye actually did a better job presenting his viewpoint in this debate. Both men avoided questions at times, both lost confidence at times. But overall, the point for Nye should have been to paint creationism as ridiculous and misconceived, and point for Ham should have been to emphasize the myriad holes in evolutionary theory and place the burden of proof on Nye as he presented the accepted status quo - thereby building the credibility of alternate theories of origin by discrediting the accepted one. Ham failed to do that when he had the chance. The key for creationists is that both theories of origin require faith. No theory of origin is testable or observable, so it should only be accepted with an asterisk, much like quantum theory and other theories of light. The advancement of science dictates the tolerance of alternative viewpoints, and intelligent design/creationism should not be an exception.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 02:58:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015