Reposted from Rachel's Hobbit Hole
So I was thinking about this earlier, and it seems to me that, in the
question of whether or not creationism is a viable scientific field of
study, despite Bill Nye's very good, factual answers, it was Ken Ham the
creationist who delivered the decisive blow in the debate. Alas, for
young earth creationists, it was against Ken Ham.
When asked what would change their minds,
Ken Ham's response was, in effect, "nothing". "Well, I'm a Christian,"
he explained. And that was indeed explanation enough: evidence does not
and cannot trump belief. By contrast, Nye responded with "evidence".
That,
ladies and gentlemen, is the difference, the only answer you will ever
need to "is creationism science?" Scientists reshape ideas to fit
evidence, not the other way around. Nye responded as a scientist. Ham
responded as a zealot. Ham has every right to be as zealous and as
closed-minded as he likes. But that is not science. It is a direct
rejection of science and rational thinking.
So I would
say that Ken Ham, even more than Bill Nye, delivered the decisive
answer in last night's debate: no, creationism is not science. It is a
belief system based on a literal reading of select parts of a
scientifically inaccurate book. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.
No comments:
Post a Comment