Christian Today Poll Says Bill Nye Won Debate With Ken Ham


Starting last night, the website Christian Today held an informal poll on its website asking who won the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate. As of today, the clear winner, by a landslide, was Bill Nye, who captured a whopping 92% of the vote.  Ham was struggling along with a mere 8% of the vote. Some may be surprised that the stunning victory was recorded on a specifically Christian website, but anyone who watched the debate might have a difficult time defending Ham, who offered no scientific evidence to support creationism. Instead, he stuck mainly to the Bible, Jesus and the concept of salvation.

According to PEW research, about 60% of Americans accept Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, while another 33% think humans have co-existed, in the same form as they do today, with all other animal “kinds.” The idea of animal kinds was illustrated last night by Ham, who believes the Bible is a literal transcription of history.

The Christian Today poll reflects not only the majority viewpoint with regard to evolution, but some say it’s also indicative of the fact that Nye’s skillful debunking of Ham’s claims is what caused Nye to have won the debate.  Ham believes that Noah and his family built a gigantic ark that housed about 7,000 animal “kinds” right before God sent a huge flood to destroy the earth. It was from these animal kinds, Ham says, that all other animals sprang forth.

Nye pointed out that there is no way Noah could have built an ark that was able to withstand the rigors of the sea and explained that an experiment has been done which disproves the Noah story. A huge wooden ship was built by the best ship makers in the world, but it was not able to survive on the open ocean. Because it was so big, the ocean’s waves cause the boat to twist back and forth until it finally began to suffer structural damage. It eventually ended up sinking.

Nye also delved into the question about the age of the earth, and he showed examples of fossils, trees and ice spheres which are all much older than 6,000 years. Ham is what’s known as a “young earth creationist” and he counts the age of the earth by stories in the Bible.

Commentary online this morning also is trending toward the Nye camp, with several major websites and online magazines declaring Nye the winner. However, the Daily Beast, a popular online news magazine, heartily disagrees. Author Michael Schulson says Nye did a terrible job and that the debate was “a nightmare for science.” Schulson says Nye was boring, “geeky” and that he rambled. Schulson also says he was so disinterested in Nye’s talk that he had to start drinking in order to make it through the rest of the show.

Apparently, though, Schulson’s sentiment is not shared by the people who participated in the poll at the Christian Today website, because that poll states that Bill Nye won the debate against Ken Ham by a huge landslide. With the debate over and the commentary beginning to wind down, questions linger over whether the debate helped or hurt Ham’s cause. With all the publicity and attention the debate delivered, one thing’s for sure: both men are undoubtedly walking away with fatter wallets.

By: Rebecca Savastio

Christian Today

Business Insider

PEW Research

The Daily Beast

60 Responses to "Christian Today Poll Says Bill Nye Won Debate With Ken Ham"

  1. evolved   February 16, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    The followers of Apsu, Osiris, Hotei, Odin, Eingina, Pipek and Zeus all believed as strongly in their gods as those here do in Christianity’s.

    At the end of the day, no one debates those gods ‘existed’ to explain what couldn’t be explained and to create fear of reprisal from those who used gods, like swords, to control others.

    In time, this god will be viewed just like those gods. Clearly some commenting here just take a little more time to evolve. Or do you still think the sun is pulled across the sky in a chariot?

  2. Delwyn Xavier Campbell   February 9, 2014 at 11:46 am

    “But all of these difficulties together, as staggering as they are, are not the real problem. The major difficulty in chemical evolution scenarios is how to account for the informational code of DNA without intelligence being a part of the equation. DNA carries the genetic code: the genetic blueprint for constructing and maintaining a biological organism. We often use the terms of language to describe DNA’s activity: DNA is “transcribed” into RNA; RNA is “translated” into protein; geneticists speak of the “genetic code.” All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input. Chemical experiments may be able to construct small sequences of nucleotides to form small molecules of DNA, but this doesn’t make them mean anything. There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life.” – Dr. Ray Bohlin, M.S., population genetics, M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology.

    • John Grimes   February 10, 2014 at 8:36 am

      “We often use the terms of language to describe DNA’s activity…All these words imply intelligence…”

      No, those words imply nothing of the sort, they are simply conventions used by scientists to describe the activity in terms that are easy to understand.

      • George   February 11, 2014 at 10:25 pm

        What is a code and where does it originate?

        • John Grimes   February 12, 2014 at 11:01 pm

          I’m not your mother, George. If you don’t know how to look things up on the Internet, it’s time you learned.

    • mike dobkin   March 19, 2014 at 8:42 am

      Just because something appears to have been intelligently designed, it doesn’t mean you can say for certainty that it was. Show me the evidence of a creator, and I’ll believe it. Until then it is more convincing to me that life resulted from purely naturalistic causes…because nature and the universe is all we can measure, all we have evidence of, all that we can observe.

      If you point to DNA as being too complex to occur naturally based on our current understanding of nature, then why not just say “I don’t know why this occurred or how, let’s find out” instead of positing a creator.

  3. Delwyn Xavier Campbell   February 9, 2014 at 11:42 am

    If those were the terms of the debate(6000 years and does Creationism perfectly reflect what we see), it would be impossible to win. There is no biblical doctrine which says that the earth must be 6000 years old, however, macroevolution BARELY works only if the earth is Billions of years old. Mathematicians who work in statistical analysis repeatedly show that the probabilities of the things that Macroevolution calls for in order to work are so small as to be practically 0% (

    • Guenter Dantrimont   February 14, 2014 at 10:25 pm

      The link leads to a page with the usual strawman arguments. If Darwin could not explain the evolution of the eye – even more praise to him as a pioneer who – together with wallace – developed a theory that is valid til today even after Darwin had to guess on some points. Don’t forgat that Darwin could not even know anything about DNA in the first place, let alont it’s double helix structure or it’s complex machinery. His theory was perfectly proven afterwards with each progress in biology, especially DNA. So what about Darwin’s problems with evolution of the eye? Today everything about the eye is essentially solved. What does it tell us, if evolution deniers argue against Darwin’s original problems? It appears they have no better arguments than to stubbornly focus on 150 years old riddles that are solved for centuries.


Your Thoughts?