Stakeholder #2

Stakeholder #2: Ken Ham

"Acdixon" "Ken Ham speaking" 5/31/2014 via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain Dedication.

Ken Ham is almost the complete opposite of Bill Nye. A white-haired man with glasses and collared shirts from Australia, the man became the president of an organization called Answers in Genesis and founded the Creationist Museum. He doesn't bounce with enthusiasm; rather, he speaks coolly and confidently. If you've heard a religious person rant about their beliefs, you can imagine what he sounds like. But if you haven't, it's essentially the sound of someone passing off their beliefs as fact without actually having evidence that most people would want when debating. He is definitely a successful leader in what he does, probably one of the most credible creationists out there (credible, meaning he is very qualified to discuss creationism, not that he has any facts or science to support his claims). Ken Ham in one sentence: he's that old religious uncle in your family that lived in Australia for his whole life and never stops talking about the Bible. I don't know if anyone actually has that uncle, but if you do, Ham is it.


"Our young people — and adults — should be aware that considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution." This claim gives absolutely zero credibility to Ken Ham as a participant in the debate. Scientifically, there actually isn't dissent in the scientific world regarding evolution. The dissent only exist when religions start piping up. This could play at the emotions if you were willing to buy into the words, but it does nothing factually.
[20:25-20:34] " . . .We make no apology about the fact that our origins or historical science is based upon the biblical account of origins." This claim is very questionable and is a very good outline of his viewpoint for the entire debate. There actually isn't any evidence behind the claim, except for the Bible. But if one doesn't accept the Bible as truth, the Bible can't be used as evidence in an argument, and there's no true scientific evidence. In fact, it's possible that the term "historical science" is misused by creationists like Ken Ham himself. It's definitely a cardinal sin of debate to invent your own evidence, and it seems like this is what Ham has done.
[0:54-0:57] "In fact, Bill Nye really doesn't understand science." This claim is an emotional appeal. People who hear it and believe it would react negatively against Nye; they wouldn't want their children being taught science by someone who really doesn't understand science! But in fact, I have no idea from where Ken Ham came up with this claim. Considering all of the recognition Nye has received for his success in science, and every single episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy, it seems like Nye is pretty good at talking about science in exactitude and correctness. So I'm not sure where this comes from.
Of course, these claims are completely on the opposite side of the spectrum from Bill Nye's claims. The two, as the primary debaters, are meant to clash in opinion. These claims might align with other creationist views, who don't believe in evolution as presented by Nye in the debate.