#HamonNye, Round Two: This Time It’s Biblical

As you may have heard, His Hamminess Ken Ham, pope of the young-earth creationist church, hosted a little-publicized back-and-forth with Bill Nye the Science Guy back in February 2014.

Though the science educator agreeing to participate in such an event was probably misguided, it did have the intended consequence of forever settling all debate regarding the validity of evolution, young-earthism and, of course, traditional fish sex.

Just kidding. Like most debates, the cringe-worthy affair was an entirely pointless waste of time, in which two guys talked past each other for an hour and a half, and everyone in the audience went home more convinced of whatever they believed before the debate started.

Fortunately, the debate is continuing. And there’s a small chance that it could be more effective this time around, since (as with any good sequel) there are a couple new characters in the cast. So, without any further ado, and thanks to the ever-talented David MacMillan, God of Evolution proudly presents Ham vs. Nye, Round Two.

On ham

2-staying away from ham

On who was there

3-were you there

On human ancestry

4-ape men

On the cosmic microwave background


On contradictions


On stellar parallax


On the fossil record


On the flood

9-ham on moses

10-flood 2




On biblical interpretation




On evidence

17-I have a book

18-I have a book 2

19-my line

Well, have you changed your mind forever? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Tyler Francke is founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached at tyler@godofevolution.com.

  • Chris

    The last slide says it all. One “side” is built on the ability to be wrong to understand it better, the other so firmly convinced they’ve got it all right and any concession crumbles the whole thing.

    • Yup. I personally loved how Moses and Jesus were on Bill Nye’s side the whole time and it was completely believable.

      • Professor_Tertius

        Obviously, it would be difficult to convey the idea in a cartoon—but it would be funny to see Ham standing alone with the other side populated by everyone from St. Augustine to Calvin to hero of inerrantism, Benjamin Warfield.

        • Andrew

          Ham’s head would probably explode in that scenario. He would be unable to use his favorite word… compromise 🙂

          • Professor_Tertius

            Ham has been careful not to hurl the “compromising Christian” nasty at Ben Carson (when he was defending Ben’s theism during his presidential campaign) and at Jimmy Carter during his recent visit to the Ark Park.

        • David

          I created a second set of cartoons that will be posted soon…here’s one where I used this concept:


          • I’ll get those up early next week. Family and I are headed out on a big camping trip tomorrow.

          • summers-lad

            I particularly like this one. How often have we heard that we only take a “non-literal” view of Genesis because of Darwin? (Although as Tyler has ably pointed out many times, a “literal” view, in the YEC sense, doesn’t reflect the text anyway. End of digression.) It is highly significant that these theologians took a more symbolic view, for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with modern science. (Unless, of course, science, being the diabolical invention that it is, decided to counter the YEC “appearance of age” nonsense with an appearance of youth…)

      • Atlas

        And Ken Ham still isn’t convinced. Obviously, he worships the bible, not god. Then again, the Talmudic story “The Furnace of Achnai” states that god has no right to interpret the bible, only we have that right. But I doubt he’s read that.

        • It’s hard to fit any reading time into his blog-writing schedule.

  • Professor_Tertius

    These MacMillan cartoons are certainly far more thought-provoking than any of those juvenile and shallow cartoons on the AIG website. The AIG cartoons always leave me feeling a bit embarrassed that so many non-Christians think that those cartoons represent how most Bible-affirming evangelicals think and act. Do AIG.com readers ever ask themselves whether those cartoons help to communicate the love of Christ for the non-believer visiting the website? Do the AIG cartoons serve any other purpose than reinforcing the smug sense of superiority of Ham fans? (They all share a common theme: “If you disagree with us, you suck. We are superior!”)

    I like the way MacMillan lets Ham’s own words and behavior make the case.

    • I really like how they put Jesus and Moses on the side of science in a perfectly plausible way.

    • Andrew

      The answer to both of your questions is no. I was one of those AIG readers for a long time so believe me I know. After I “converted” to old earth creationism I was actually kind of mad at myself that I might have helped to place any stumbling blocks to Christ. I also sent a very strongly worded email to AIG about that. I guess that email had about the same effect on them that these cartoons will, as in not much.

  • I like Moses’ enthusiasm for modern science. That and finally someone has a good “were you there” response.

    • I firmly believe we will all see a scenario fairly similar to this one in heaven shortly after the End of Days.

  • John

    I understand this is parody of AIG cartoons but it still goes too far. Problems with this cartoon from a Christian perspective: 1. Lacks common sense in areas leaving the over all argument of the cartoon to suffer I.e. How would a localized Mediterranean flood make sense of God’s covenant of the rainbow? It’s implying God promised to never again have a localized flood? There have been many large localized flooding events since then not to mention tsunamis 2. False prophecy (speaking for Jesus/God) and using Him irreverently to push the illustrators points. 3. Bill Nye is supposedly sitting next to Jesus and Moses and still has nothing to say about his own need for salvation? (Regardless of debate topic I think Nye would be flat on His face before God. 4. Moses states he is not next to Ham because Ham is unclean yet Nye who mocks Christians isn’t unclean according to the mosaic law?(not well thought out joke) 5. The humor of this cartoon if coming from a Christian source is poor taste, and not edifying.

    • David

      Ah, well.

      1. Many theistic evolutionists consider the flood account to be largely parabyllic, though some consider a local flood, as I portray Moishe explaining above. Glenn Morton, in particular, has an excellent explanation of the Noahic deluge as the catastrophic failure of the prehistoric Gibraltar dam and the sudden inundation of the formerly sub-sea-level Mediterranean valley by the Atlantic. Historically, this overlaps the earliest likely habitation of the Mediterranean valley. Morton argues for a preflood localization of humanity, and points out that God’s covenant was that he would never destroy all of mankind with a flood, which obviously has not happened. There is strong reason to suggest that “the whole Earth” is a localized statement reflecting the authorial conception of the social order; Joshua says, “The fear of the Israelites came upon the whole Earth and every nation under heaven” but it is quite unlikely that Australian aborigines were fearful of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan.

      The claim that a local-flood interpretation is somehow “sloppy” suggests someone who has been spending a great deal of time listening to YECs and not much time actually examining the wide body of literature from the overwhelming majority of scholarship.

      2. Were you there?

      To say there’s something wrong with putting these words in the mouth of Jesus (even laying aside the obvious humorous purpose) is equivalent to claiming that these words COULDN’T come from Jesus…which is still speaking for Jesus.

      3. Lots of big blasted aggrandizement here. Read the gospels. Jesus is a person, not a flaming sphere of god-energy that incinerates everything around him. What do you think the point of the Incarnation was? “If only there was a mediator between us…one who could lay a hand on us both.” “My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.” I had forgotten the annoying obtusity of this tired fantasy of who God is. Especially because it is cloaked in false reverence.

      4. So even a humorous play on words is a step too far for this humorlessness? Egads. What Nye mocks, Nye mocks well. Don’t forget that Jesus roundly mocked the Pharisees for their foolishness, and even they were not as obtuse and self-assured as the YEC establishment.

      5. Tasted great to me.

      • Well said, David. Especially:

        To say there’s something wrong with putting these words in the mouth of Jesus (even laying aside the obvious humorous purpose) is equivalent to claiming that these words COULDN’T come from Jesus…which is still speaking for Jesus.

        I LOLed.

    • Matthew Funke

      The humor of this cartoon if coming from a Christian source is poor taste, and not edifying.

      It seems to me that meditating on this claim gives interesting insights as to why so much contemporary Christian art sucks. Consider what someone who claims this about the comic strip above would demand in his/her art.

    • I understand this is parody of AIG cartoons but it still goes too far. Problems with this cartoon from a Christian stuck-up, narrow-minded, uber-literalist YEC extremist perspective:

      Fixed that for you.

      • David

        Now, now, “stuck up” and “narrow minded” isn’t fair; it’s not his fault he’s stuck in an uber-literalist YEC extremist perspective. 😉