Is creation a viable origin model in today's modern scientific age? This was the focal point of the debate between Ken Ham, a leading creationist apologist, and Bill Nye, an Emmy Award-winning science educator. Focusing on Ken Ham and his hermeneutics, it is clear that the genre he presupposes for Genesis 1-3 is that of historical narrative. Genesis lays the foundation for the gospel, which is why he and other biblical creationists take such a young view of the earth (Responses to Genesis). The first chapters of Genesis teach us about God's perfect creation, the rebellious fall of man, God's righteous punishment of death for sin, and God's gracious promise of the seed, Jesus Christ (Answers in Genesis). Ham states: “The creation/evolution debate is really a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts of historical scientific origins or beliefs. Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era.” He says, “Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence about the Grand Canyon, about fossils, about animals, about humans, about DNA, about radioactive decay, and about the Universe.” Creationists and evolutionists differ in the sense that, although they use the same evidence, they develop two radically different interpretations. Ham states: “The diversity of species that is observed is only a difference of “type”.” He therefore concludes that it cannot be used as evidence for evolution. Another example appears when Ham talks about how creationists and evolutionists at the Goddard Space Center agreed on how to build the Hubble telescope. They disagreed on how to interpret the data obtained by the telescope regarding the age of the universe. It is clear that Ham continues to base his pres...... middle of paper ...... on why the son of God died on the cross for everyone. Finally, the catastrophe in comparison to Christ refers to the universal flood that was to come. The flood was a judgment due to man's wickedness as well as a message of God's grace and salvation. Ham then concluded how “observational sciences” examine the things we can see in repeatable events now and compares them to “historical science ” which uses collected evidence to determine what happened in the past. Because of his comparison he states that "we can never truly have 'knowledge' as regards the historical sciences." In summary, the debate helped me create a more sophisticated analysis of Genesis. This led me to take away my interpretation of the text in Genesis 1-3, through listening to Ken Ham and his vision of the young Earth. Works Cited ""Don't call us young Earth creationists. . ."" Answers in Genesis. Np, nd Web. 04 May 2014.