DEBATING EVOLUTION: BILL NYE VERSUS KEN HAMM 1
The debate was over a question of fact since the participants mostlybased on philosophical views and ideas rather than production ofhighly specified knowledge. They rarely pointed technical issues anddid not argue on how the complexity of the matter will change in thefuture. Both Hamm and Nye were relying on common knowledge andpointed logical complications. Most often, the participants werepresenting arguments based on their understanding despite quotingvarious authors to reinforce their views. Above all, the debate doesnot base on principle, which is necessary to make it a policy.
The debate was a formal one since there were prior arrangements withspecifically planned questions as well as the time limit for eachparticipant to present his ideas and respond to the questions. Inaddition, the debate has significant effect on the audience andaddresses a specific topic that has great interest in the audience.There are also various problems addressed such as the credibility ofthe evidence produced to support creation and evolution and most ofthe arguments presented possess a reasonable degree of soundness. Theparticipants also enjoyed the autonomy of presenting their ideas.
The debate aimed at assessing the originality of the universe andall creatures living on earth to gain a single view of whether Godwas responsible or natural forces. The idea is also to assess theimpact of such beliefs towards production and innovation in themodern world. The participants were attempting to prove whether theirideas would promote the development of scientific knowledge or hinderthe ongoing steps achieved in the development of scientificknowledge. The major interest was to challenge the credibility of theevidence provided in support of creation and evolution.
Bill Nye targeted all creationists arguing that God was responsiblefor the existence of life, mostly Christians that base on Biblicalverses in support of their arguments. He directly points Sciencestudents in schools, colleges and universities arguing that thecreation belief will undermine the development of scientificknowledge and innovation in the future by reducing the urge toexplore and seek the truth concerning nature. On the other hand, KenHamm targets all individuals that do not believe in creation in allareas including learning institutions and organizations involved inproduction and research.
Nye did more effective job in gaining ethos with the audience as hefocused on the effect of the belief in creation on the development ofscientific knowledge and the overall impact on innovation anddevelopment of the country in the future. He directly shares hisfeelings with the audience.
Hamm did more effective job in justification of his argumentsbecause he provided more examples and pointed many authors thatpresented similar ideas. He directly challenged Nye’s views bypointing the areas of weaknesses apart from sharing his personalexperiences with the audience.
Hamm did more effective job responding to the arguments of theopponents as he provided live examples where his view appliedsuccessfully and contributed to the development of useful ideas. Hepointed scientists that invented important concepts to counter theargument that his belief will retard the development of scientificknowledge.
Nye did a more effective job in summarizing the issues byhighlighting the shortcomings of the creationists view and stated thegeneral effect of the belief on the effect of scientific knowledgeand the position of the country in the future. He was more specificand categorical in pointing the weaknesses and the effects.