It’s an inane and baseless fallacy, a conclusion with no reasoning, a judgment with no facts.Yet every time Nye presented a careful explanation of evolutionary processes, Ham responded with the same smug line: “You don’t know that.Anyone who says otherwise—that is, anyone who accepts basic science—is just spreading the devil’s lies.
The only apparent distinction between the two categories?
Should that happen, Ham will likely be ready to lay the blame on his despised enemy, “the atheist lobby”—though he’ll really have no one to blame but himself.
Ham may be able to deny the validity of evolution, of natural selection, of carbon dating and fossil records and basic physics.
Nye has the burden of being tethered to facts; Ham has the luxury to create his own fiction.
And that’s why, despite presenting an overwhelmingly more cogent case for evolution than Ham did for creationism, Nye walked away from the debate the clear loser.