Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham on Creationism – Did You Watch It?

    In August 2012, Bill Nye “the Science Guy” posted a video on YouTube (that has since been viewed more than 6 million times!) arguing that teaching biblical creationism was bad for children. In response, Ken Ham, founder of Northern Kentucky’s Creation Museum, made his own video championing creationism, and after more than a year, the two men held a highly-anticipated public debate last night, February 4, at the museum. The topic? “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

    According to the Courier-Journal, the $25 tickets to the live event “sold out in two minutes, and discussion of the event has lit up cultural blogs, attracted national attention and stoked an ages-old fight between science and religion.”

    Missed the debate? You can watch it in full below:

    Watch Nye’s original video here and Ham’s response video here.

    Girls, did you watch the debate? If not, will you be watching now? What did you think of the arguments? Who do you agree with? Give us your thoughts in the comments below!

    Team Project Inspired
    We here at Project Inspired want to guide and inspire teen girls to be true to themselves and to God. We want to show young girls how to be people of value and confidence – how to be your own best selves – through leading a Christian life. Who are we? We're a team of girls, like you. We edit the site, we post to social media, we hang out in the chat rooms and forums. We talk with you, we listen to you, and we love you!


    1. I watched it, and I am not going to lie, when I heard Bill Nye speak, I had my doubts, but then Ken Ham reassured me, and I prayed to God, and I am ABSOLUTELY sure that I believe that God created the Earth in 6 24hr days, and he tells us everything we need to know in his book!

    2. It was incredible! Ken Ham not only offered so much evidence in favor of creationism, but he also answered Bill Nyes accusations without stooping to the level of Bill Nye’s condescending attitude!

    3. Ken Ham’s answer for everything was “because the Bible said so”, whereas Bill Nye actually had scientific thought-out evidence pertaining to his argument. Ken Ham could have brought out scientific evidence to support his claim, but since he didn’t and just cried “the Bible!” It leads me to believe that there is no scientific evidence supporting Ken’s claim.

      One major difference between the two men: if Bill Nye is provided with scientific evidence about something, it will change his mind and he will accept that change. If Ken Ham is presented with the same evidence, he won’t change his mind. At that point I lost respect for Ken Ham, and to me it seemed the Bill Nye definitely won this debate.

      • Yes, Bill Nye appeared to have scientific evidence for many of his claims, and I will agree that he was a very good speaker. However, further research into his claims actually reveals many of the evidence he presented is untrue (i.e. Ice layers that supposedly build up one at a time every year, proving that the earth is older than 6,000 yrs). There is a lot of scientific evidence supporting the Bible, but even if it was brought up, it would simply be a never ending battle between Ham’s evidence against Bill Nye’s “evidence.” I think the Ken Ham could definitely have nailed him on many points, but didn’t. I didn’t lose respect for Ken Ham, rather, I gained respect for him. The points that he did make were clear, concise, and true, which is more than I can say for Bill Nye.
        Also, I would like to point out that Bill Nye presented his claims with “evidence”, but he never answered any questions asked of him with scientific evidence. Many questions asked to him were replied with “I don’t know”, or “That’s the great mystery.” All in all, Bill Nye “seemed” to have evidence, but when asked about the very basis of his beliefs, he couldn’t provide any sort of claims to back his ideas up.

        • Saying that you “don’t know” is not defeat- rather it shows that he understands that everything doesn’t neccesarily have an answer. There are many things we do not know, and instead of pretending to know everything, he admitted to the fact that not everything is proven yet. That is extremely respectable. Ken Ham just assumed he knew all the answers, and he said that if he wouldn’t ever change his mind even if he was given evidence. That’s what made me lose respect for Ken Ham. Perhaps there is good evidence supporting Ken’s claim, but he failed to bring it up during the debate. When addressed a question, Bill Nye answered with science and Ken Ham answered “there’s this good book I know…” . That’s not an argument.

      • Well, I’m really sorry to hear that. I have actually been to the Creation Museum (where it was held) twice. It is amazing! I am going again in June. What many Christians fail to realize is that being a Christian means following Christ–God gives us the Bible for that. Ken Ham only referred to the Bible (“there is a book”) because that is the very basis for Creation. Ken Ham didn’t need to tell Nye any more than that. I watched it a while ago, and was confused.

        I absolutely love Creation Science, and love listening to Kent Hovind’s Creation Evangelism Seminars, as well as Ken Ham’s. I’ve learned (through thorough research) that Evolution is a theory with no REAL evidence. Not to mention that it degrades mankind’s value. It is a religion just like Christianity. You CANNOT believe both the Bible and Evolution; it just isn’t possible.

    4. I watched almost the whole thing and I thought that the subject that they were debating over was way to broad, they should’ve had a more specific topic to keep them from going off topic, which they did a lot. This was not a very good debate, they both did not answer each other’s questions and kept going to other things instead of proving their point of backing up their claim. I think that Bill Bye was a better SPEAKER, his use of evidence and rhetoric made him more convincible, that is if you never knew about the subject, but it did make him sound like a politician. I whish that Ken Ham would’ve backed up his claims and answered all of the constant questions that Bill Bye was asking, this would’ve made him more believable. In the end there was clearly no win.

    5. I watched it and thought that Bill Nye must not know how a debate works. He was talking about Ken Ham’s model of creation and if that is viable. He was not talking about the actual question. I think he was doing a lot of mud slinging, and asking for proof and answers, while his answers were usually ” I don’t know” and “It is a mystery.” I know that for those who are deceived the Word of God will seem like nonsense. But while watching it with my parents, it made me mad, and even though I grew up watching ” Bill Nye The Science Guy” I no longer think so highly of him as I once did. Yes he is a very intelligent and educated man but he is truly blinded and deceived and I hope and pray he realizes his mistake before it is too late. However I did enjoy Ken Ham, he made me think about things that I hadn’t thought about when it comes to Creation.

      • Yes! I hated how he kept refering to it as Ken Ham’s model. And he didn’t know the answers to any of the questions whereas Ken Ham could give a pretty good answer. I totally agree with you.

    6. While I did not get to watch it my Science teach talked about it, he said it wasnt a good debate but said that Ken had some good points in how micro- evolution might have occurred after the ark. It’s all so interesting and helps me get into how the earth was created by God more

    7. Here’s a great article by a Jewish scientist about the age of the world:

      It’s long, but worth it!
      He explains how Moses refers to the “days of old” and the “days of Adam” referring to the time after Adam was created. The original translation of Genesis talks about “Day One” and then the “second day, third day, etc.” presenting six comparative periods of time.
      He explains the theory of relativity and our perception of time; like how time goes by slower on different planets, by our perception.
      In the end he talks about how the universe has expanded since the beginning, and every time the universe doubles- our perception of time is cut in half. If you take the numbers- starting with our perception of a day- 24 hours, and take it through all the times the universe has expanded-
      Day One would be 8 billion years, by our perspective
      The Second Day would be 4 billion years
      Third, 2 billion years
      Fourth, 1 billion
      Fifth, 1/2 billion
      Sixth, 1/4 billion
      All together, that’s 15 3/4 billion years.
      And if you take what the bible says was created in each of those six periods of time, and look at archaeology, paleontology, and cosmology- they match up!!
      The Bible tells us what is definitely true, and scientists don’t have it completely right- but when you look at their work from the Biblical perspective, things can fit!

    8. I love debates (I’m a weirdo c:) especially ones that involve creationism Vs. evolution. Ken Ham is very well educated and was able to answer the questions as they were given. I felt that Bill Nye’s argument started to fall apart after the second rebuttal.

    9. I didn’t watch it but I’ll just put my two cents on what I believe:

      I’m Catholic but I do believe in evolution. Yes I realise Genesis states the earth was made in seven days, but I believe the term “days” is used to describe a period of time, not 24-hour days. It kind of hurts me to see my childhood favourite science guy to have such a negative and kind of condescending opinion on the Bible, but I suppose to each their own.

      As for the question “Bible or Science”? Why don’t we have both?

    10. I wrote this for my speech class senior year. We were to pick a controversial topic and pick a stance. Once we picked a stance our teacher made us argue the opposite. So my original argument was “God and Science DO Coincide” but I then had to argue “God and Science DONT Coincide” A lot of people believe God and science cannot go together so I thought it would be fun to prove how they are, but unfortunately when my stance was switched I couldn’t prove how they do, or so thought. After much thought, prayer, and research I found away to argue that science and God don’t coincide while still arguing my root point of WHY science and God do coincide while also arguing WHY they do not. Here it is:

      All around us we hear that God and Science coincide, that however is a controversial

      topic and should be looked at more closely before assumptions are made. My original stance was

      that God and science DO in fact coincide, but now that the circumstances are flipped my stance

      is that God and science DO NOT coincide. Which one is true? After much research I found that

      both stances can be true, and both stances can argue the same thing. So to begin my journey

      researching I took it to the root and asked “Why don’t they coincide?” And that is how I found

      the perfect argument.

      First off I’m going to start with the mere definition of science to understand the basis of

      this whole argument. Science is defined as “knowledge about or study of the natural world based

      on facts learned through experiments and observation” (Webster, 2015). Science itself is not

      necessarily fact and is not eccessarily right. It’s the knowledge based on facts. Not facts based on

      facts, although fact does occur often times. This is a piece of information that is often overlooked

      when science is used as a means of support. But for the purposes of this rebuttal, this fact is

      highly importnant.

      Secondly the awareness of syllogisms and logical fallacies is imperative. The mere

      definition of science proves that there is room for a few fallacies here and there when it comes to

      scientific research because it is not fact gathered from fact, its knowledge as established before.

      Just like a syllogism, the original statement can be true and factual, but the outcome is not true

      even though it’s logical. Science can work much in the same way. Many a times have hypotheses

      been made and obsevations been conducted to come to conclusions of false information that

      may or may not be later disproven. Examples of such include but are not limited to

      Fleischmann–Pons’s Nuclear Fusion, Einstein’s Static Universe, and spontaneous generation.

      So how do the definition of science and the awareness of syllogisms support the

      argument that God and science do not coincide? The answer is simple. God and science do not

      coincide because science is logically flawed and God is not. Some science that is correct does

      coincide with God and those pieces of information are used to support the argument that “God

      and science do coincide”. But on the opposite pole of the spectrum, information must support

      that argument. So this information that is supportive is questionably incorrect. If past science that

      once seemed so accurate was used as a great many means of support for argument, who’s to say

      that “modern “ science that has not yet been disproven and may never be disproven is not in the

      same boat?

      So back to the beginning about both arguments arguing the same thing: Science can

      coincide with God, but not all science; science doesn’t coincide with God, but not all science.

      You see there’s science that’s true and science that’s false. It’s the true science that coincides,

      and it’s the false science that opposes. But there’s no real knowing what science is true and what

      science is false without a stable means of truth, which has been proven is not science. For the

      purposes of this particular argument: God and science do not coincide because science is not

      stable nor 100% accurate as God is, so the two cannot be compared.

    11. Why can’t we have both religion and science? I mean, in the eyes of the Lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, so creation might not have taken six literal days. Also, who are we to say what God’s exact process for creating the world was? I believe that he used evolution as a creative process, so the animals could grow in addition to the planet. In fact, the man who came up with the Big Bang theory, Fr. Georges Lemaitrê, was a priest. He also delivered one of the greatest burns of all time when he told Albert Einstein that his physics were terrible.

    12. Ugh. I am listening to the Debate now and it is making me so angry some of the things Mr Nye is saying!! “Ken Ham’s flood” Um sorry but yeah no. It was God’s flood. And it actually happened. I really liked what Mr Ham had to say though!! Good strong points on his part! ?

    Project Inspired

    Hey there, welcome to Project Inspired. We're here to inspire you to know that God created you for a wonderful purpose. We are a community of believers who love God. You have gifts and talents from God that are unique to you, and we're here to guide you along the way.

    Read On

    4 Free Workout Apps to Help You Get Healthy From Home

    Do you want to pick up some new healthy habits but can't ever seem to find the time? You're not alone! But even if...

    How to Use Social Media for Good: 5 Tips

    Whether we want it to be or not, I would say that social media is no doubt going to continue being a part of...

    A Child’s Right to Life

    Our country is in the middle of a battle between abortion activists and the horrors of killing unborn children, and the many people and...

    Catch the Latest on TikTok and Instagram Reels!

    I’ve been having a lot of fun lately sharing videos on TikTok and Instagram Reels. There’s no doubt that social media can sometimes be...

    3 Important Lessons From Switched Every Girl Needs To Hear

    The reviews are in and Switched is a must-see movie for fall! This film is full of laughs and Freaky Friday-esque fun. But it...


    Stay connected with Project Inspired.