As with most debates, it was obvious before it began that neither was going to convince the other to change his fundamental world view. There were plenty of questions that Nye, leaning on science, couldn’t provide an answer for, but he treated those moments not as defeats but as reasons to be excited about the possibilities of scientific inquiry. Ham, meanwhile, took comfort in what Nye referred to as his “literal interpretation of most parts of the Bible,” reconciling anything he couldn’t answer with the response that God’s word is “the only thing that makes logical sense.”

That all was further confirmed when a member of the audience asked what turned out to be the crux of the debate: what, if anything, would convince the men to change their minds? Ham’s answer: “I’m a Christian.” (In other words, nothing.) Nye, on the other hand, was happy to concede that just one piece of evidence to support a Biblical interpretation of Earth’s formation — that the universe is not expanding, or that rock layers can somehow form in just 4,000 years — would cause him to change his mind “immediately.”

Asking for evidence is the opposite of faith.

More on this debate:

http://pandawhale.com/post/37019/bill-nye-and-ken-ham-debate-creationism