Creation Debate Issue #3: The Topic of the Debate

One would think that the topic of the debate would not be at issue since that was determined by an agreement before the debate, but Bill Nye made it a major contention. The topic is, "Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" Bill Nye repeatedly stated the title of the debate differently in order to focus on Ken Ham rather than the question at issue, so he kept calling it Ken Ham's model. This is known as an ad hominem fallacy. Any time a person uses ad hominem fallacies, it is an indication that the person is not interested in finding the truth but is only interested in swaying the crowd.

The actual debate title requires that Bill Nye either prove conclusively that God didn't create as God says that He did or else prove conclusively that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story actually took place. If Bill can prove either of those (which he cannot), then he can make a case that Creation ought not to be taught in the schools and the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story ought to be taught in the schools. However, bill wants to say that if he can use logical fallacies such as appeal to ridicule, straw man, or ad hominem, or claim that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story could possibly have taken place, then he has made his case.

Bill Nye's contention is that only the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story ought to be taught to children. And no one who doesn't believe in the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story should be allowed to do science. If those two demand that Bill Nye is making are to be acted on, then either the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story must be shown to be absolutely true or Creation must be shown to be absolutely false.

Bill Nye failed at the task of proving that Creation is impossible. Given the debate topic, that is what Bill had to do. Bill Nye has not shown the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story to be a model that doesn't violate major laws of science let alone prove that it actually happened. He has certainly not shown any evidence that conflicts with the historical account of Creation in Scripture. And no one can, because you cannot conclusively prove a lie. You can only fool those who want to be lied to.