Is creation a viable model of origin in today's modern scientific era? This was the focal point of the debate between Ken Ham, a prominent 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 have such a young view of the Earth (Answers in Genesis). The opening chapters of Genesis teach us of God's perfect creation, man's rebellious fall, God's just punishment of death for sin, and God's gracious promise of seed, Jesus Christ (Answers in Genesis ). Ham states: “The creation/evolution debate is actually 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, fossils, animals, humans, DNA, radioactive decay and the universe. » Creationists and evolutionists differ in that, although they use the same evidence, they develop two radically different interpretations. Ham states: “The species diversity observed is only a difference in 'genus'. He then concludes that it cannot be used as proof of evolution. Another example appears when Ham explains 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 claim on why the son of God died on the cross for all. Finally, the Catastrophe in relation to Christ concerns the coming global flood. 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 science" looks at things we can see in repeatable events today and compares it to "historical science" which uses collected evidence to determine what happened in the past. Because of his comparison, he states: “we can never really have 'knowledge' about the historical sciences. » In summary, the debate helped me create a more sophisticated analysis of Genesis. This led me to take away my own interpretation of the text of Genesis 1-3, listening to Ken Ham and his young earth perspective. . .""Answers in Genesis. Np, and Web. May 4 2014.