Uncensored Science: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

As with many I heard about this debate after it had occurred. As the bits of the internet I tend to use would tends towards Nye, of course I heard he "won" the debate while unsurprisingly a bit of Googling revealed that those websites that support the whole idea of God and Jesus, tended to think that Ham "won". This didn't surprise me since neither camp was going to be convinced to even consider their position for a second but I still hoped that the debate would be interesting. It was in spurts but again unsurprisingly the debate features two people repeating their points rather than really engaging. The structure of the debate doesn't really help; the first hour is each man getting 30 minutes solo. After this rebuttals are very short. The question and answer session which made up the final section was disappointing as it took questions from the audience so, rather than testing either man, they were written with a very thinly hidden agenda one way or the other behind the question and both men just repeated their position.

In terms of who won? Well, whatever you think before you begin is what you will think at the end, so whomever has the view closest to you will be the one you agree with most and thus think "won". In terms of the two as debaters; Nye seems to enjoy the publicity but otherwise there is no reason for him to be here since he is not debating scientific fact behind creationism but rather debating the unprovable existence or not of God. As a result he can never get going and he isn't helped by some rambling moments, poor jokes and an inability to move the debate to his home territory. Ham at least plays strongly to his base because he never wavers – his "there is a book line" is old after the second time, but it does work as a debate point because ultimately this is what it comes down to since as a man of faith, of course some of his "facts" will be "because God did it". I didn't think this made for a good debate, but it was not a surprise and it is amusing how many people seem upset by this despite going in knowing who the two men were.

Moderation is OK but the scope of the debate is too limited and the position of the two men far too diverse. The 2-minute questions was a good place to expand the debate but by using audience questions (some of which the moderator struggled to read – not a good sign) it missed a trick and just continued the predetermined agenda path. It will work as confirmation of whichever side you already agree with, but as a debate it is disappointingly unsurprising throughout.

This debate is trying to address the two directly opposing models that try to explain the origins of humankind - "evolution" vs. "the creation" that is described in the book of Genesis. Depending on which view you support, it is most likely that throughout the debate and at the end of it you'll still hold the same view and won't be convinced otherwise. That is not to say that the debate itself is not interesting, but, in my opinion, the structure of it and points raised won't really sway the viewer to "switch sides".

After 5 minute opening statements from Ken Ham and Bill Nye, both debaters were given additional 30 minutes to further elaborate their position and raise arguments against the opposing model. To me this was probably the most interesting part since the presentations given by both men were well structured and informative. Here the viewer can actually evaluate the information that is presented and test their own view against it.

After the presentations I was expecting the actual debate to happen, but instead the moderator of the debate Tom Foreman was reading questions from the audience (when he could actually read them!) and both men were taking turns answering them. While in theory this should fulfill the idea of a debate, in practice you never really have the sense that Bill Nye and Ken Ham are actually debating each other. First of all the questions were obviously skewed towards either of the models with the intention to put the person answering first on the "hot spot" and then the person answering second could rebut that. During their answers both Bill Nye and Ken Ham raised some really interesting and provoking questions to the other party, but unfortunately they were not allowed to answer since their answers were timed. This left me disappointed and feeling that it's a fake debate with the audience rather than with the person standing on the stage.

As for the performance of the two debaters and the moderator, in my opinion:

• Tom Foreman as the moderator did a poor job and was mostly there to be a time-keeper. Instead of taking a pile of questions from the audience he could've actually prepared beforehand some interesting questions that could facilitate an interactive debate, but there's none of that,
• Bill Nye played well with the audience by adding some jokes while getting his points across, his charisma and the manner of speaking did remind me of university professors,
• Ken Ham had completely different style of presentation and way of speaking close to that of a politician - more slick, stoic and raising several claims during his answers.

In the end, it's purely subjective and up to the viewer to decide who "won" the debate. As I mentioned earlier, it pretty much depends on which of the theories you support before going into the debate.

If the subject interests you it is worthwhile watching, but don't expect to see a heated back and forth debate - it really misses that interactivity and doesn't fulfill its potential.

I can't tell you how EXCITED I was when I first read the news about this debate when it was announced! I'll always remember the time and place I was when I did - I bet everyone will! I definitely would call this "The Clash of the Century" or "The Scopes' Trial 2"; I think a fairly engaging and really entertaining debate - I think MORE legit than the 1925 Scopes' Trial, or even that BOGUS & deceptive movie "Inherit the Wind" which was willingly made by the IRS simply to make creationists look ignorant & dumb. Shame on you, Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly, & Hollywood! It's seriously one of the worst films ever made, no matter what people or Hollywood say.

Since Bill Nye's controversial video, "Creationism Isn't Appropriate For Children," there's been much replies, much banter, and much cyber-bullying to those who are being questioned for their faith in Christ. I would argue that evolution isn't appropriate for ANYONE! Just look at a lot of the social ills that Darwinian evolution has been the backbone of, whether it be Social, Communism, Nazism, Eugenics, etc. That teaching alone is rather "child abuse" in itself. I was actually expected SOMEONE to bring up the joke that both Ken Ham and Bill Nye look like Abraham Lincoln. lol

Though I'm not sure either side "won" - all the various websites make their own claims of who was rather the winner. I sort of wish Kent Hovind would've debated Nye instead. But in the end, it's pretty good! Do check it out on YouTube.

Pretty much my full review of this debate can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9jfqa2KpuU