Está en la página 1de 2

Logical Fallacies Made by Ken Ham

(in the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Creationism Debate)
One of my favorite discussions of all time is the two and a half
hour debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on the origins of life, the
universe, etc. However, it is riddled with logical fallacies. I am focusing
on three different examples of logical fallacies that Ken Ham makes
during the course of the talk. The link to the video will be posted in
example #1 assignment on Canvas, and I’ll talk about specifics by
mentioning the time markers they occur.
#1. Subjectivist Fallacy – Present throughout the entire
debate
For this example, I am not going to have a time frame in the video
because it occurs so frequently throughout the debate. The overall
question of the debate is: “Is creation a viable model of origins in
today’s modern scientific era?” Bill Nye backs up all his ideas to
dispute the creation idea with objective scientific data, such as
radioactive decay dating, fossils, mathematics, animals and traits
evident of evolution, etc. However, Ken Ham’s rebuttal to these proven
facts is “But you don’t really know, you weren’t there”. Over and over
again, Ham dismisses Nye’s objective evidence as opinion because he
wasn’t there at the time of creation to witness it.
Ham also uses this fallacy to support his claim that the bible is the only
true way to know how the origins of the universe began because “all
such dating methods are fallible, and I claim there is only
one infallible data method, the witness who was there and knows
everything, and He told us. And that's from the Word of God, and that's
why I would say the earth is only 6000 years.” Ham uses a Subjectivist
Fallacy and claims his interpretation of the bible is objective scientific
evidence and that scientific dating methods are subjective. Obviously
claiming objective evidence as subjective and visa versa will invalidate
the argument because it is improperly addressing the other side of the
issue and dismissing real evidence without a concrete reason to.
#2. Cherry Picking Fallacy - 1:17:50-1:18:40
Another logical fallacy Ham employs is Cherry Picking. At this point in
the debate, Ken Ham shares a story of how Australian engineers were
drilling for a coal mine and discovered 45 million year old Basalt Rock
and 45,000 year old wood material in the same layer. He drops the
example there and says that the example poses a problem with dating
methods because that inconsistency shouldn’t happen if dating
methods actually work. He doesn’t share any of the possible
explanations from scientists or otherwise about why the objects were

He is referring to cave fish. “the ability to fit in the best with the environmental situation”. and therefore the “fit” are not the ones who survive. #3 Straw Man Fallacy – 2:24:11-2:24:58 At this point in the debate. Ham completely invalidates his argument. he is misrepresenting the term “fit”. “It’s not survival of the fittest. Where these blind fish.dated that way or how the wood and basalt were found together. although now deprived one sense due to evolution. By incorrectly attacking the definition of “survival of the fittest”. it’s survival of those who survive. when the way it is intended in the evolution definition is. fit in much better with their environment and are able to survive and reproduce. However. Only picking out parts of an example that benefit your argument is not a truthful or academic way to prove your point. they are not “fit”. which have evolved to become blind over time to avoid fatal eye diseases. such as a rock layer sliding on top of the wood (at Bill Nye later suggests). because he doesn’t even address or understand the issue properly.” (which is also a circular definition if you ask me). Not sharing information that may not support his side in this case is Cherry Picking and invalidates his argument. Ham misrepresents the definition of evolution and tries to dismiss it by saying. He misrepresents the “survival of the fittest” evolution definition by claiming since these cave fish aren’t acquiring a new function. .