Some Thoughts on the Ham-Nye Debate

Decided to watch this old debate, not sure if I saw it at the time, but wanted to get a sense of the categories used in such debates. I thought Ken Ham did a very nice job in his opening half hour presentation. He spent quite a bit of time on the distinction between observational and historical science, which is cruscial to this debate, and he covered the question of Kinds and how observationally there is plenty of evidence for them but no eviddence whatever for the idea that one Kind evolved into another. Which is an illustration of how we can know facts from observational science bu when it comes to historical science it's all speculation.

You'd think that much would be acknowledged b y now but don't we sstill hear this ridiculous idea that creationists reject Science, conflating the observational with the historical as if there were no distinction? Wes houldn't fly on airp.llnaces because we reject "Science."
But of course we don't remect science at all, we reject the sp[eculative raporiting os fhistoryical science, but accept the obvious factual basis for the observational or hard sciences. They really should give up that one.

KEN HAME- BILL NYE DEBATE 2=14

And they also insist on confounding what they regard as Microevolurtion with the idea of evolution from species to species although as Ham points out there isn't a shred of evidence for that idea. We observe the enormous variations that occur in many species but that's all we can observe. That's the end of what science can acrtually claim, bur that doesn't stop them from bgoing on to affirm their belief, faith in evolution from species to species based on no evidence whatever. They really need to stop claiming that there's a ton of evidence of evolutionary theory beause there is not. For variation yes, but not for the thoery of evolution. >