When my devout Christian friend called me on a Tuesday night, the last thing I expected him to inform me about was a highly publicized debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, on the topic of creationism. Finding myself bored later that night, I popped open YouTube and became glued to my laptop screen for nearly two hours.

“Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don’t believe in evolution,” said Nye, a scientist and educator known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, in a 2012 online video. “I say to grown ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that’s completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it. Because we need them.”

Nye’s concern is justified. For the past 30 years, the number of Americans believing in creationism has stayed around 40 percent of the population. In response to Nye’s comments, Ham, co-founder and president of Christian ministry Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, challenged Nye to a debate at the Creation Museum. The scientific community demanded that Nye not even acknowledge the request, insisting such an argument was not even worthwhile. However, Nye resisted the peer pressure and accepted the challenge.

In a somewhat peculiar format, the debate began with two 30-minute presentations. Each side explained theories, posed questions and suggested effects of opposing theories. Ham’s presentation explained creationism and was intended to impose a distinction between present “observable” science and past “historical” science. This distinction between two different sciences based on natural laws changing arbitrarily makes little sense. It’s as if to say, just because something was not observable, scientists should simply rely on a book.

Nye’s presentation focused on science. He discussed fossil periods, the slow erosion of the Grand Canyon, the instability of a 500-foot wooden arc holding thousands of animals and bowties. Recognizing the positive effects of religion on the community and person, Nye accepted religion but stressed that one can be religious and still not accept Ham’s creationism model. The only possible hole in Nye’s argument was radioactive dating, of which Ham simply referred once again as “historical science.” Several five-minute responses followed the presentations, and then audience members asked questions.

The morning after I watched the debate, I awoke to find a message from my Christian friend admitting Bill Nye had won. I didn’t respond the entire day, as I wondered who had actually won the debate. Nye’s participation in the debate triggered several events. First, during the weeks surrounding the debate, the Creation Museum gained the most media coverage it had ever experienced. Since Answers in Genesis produced and distributed the debate, the ministry most likely made a decent return.

Second, people on both sides have become more informed about both opinions. Hearing opposing views is important in solidifying our own. Simply dismissing a theory because it is no longer relevant is equally as closed-minded as refusing to acknowledge present science. How can one argue without understanding opposing views, knowing how to challenge them and, more importantly, justifying your own? Too often, we judge subjectively with emotion, calling someone racist, sexist or ignorant. These terms do not further understanding between two parties but rather create additional conflict. It is important to know both sides and if necessary, coolly dismantle the opposition’s view with logic, rather than abstract terms.

Last, it inspired another generation to consider questions unanswerable by science. What are morals? What is beauty? What determines Earth’s natural laws? While some are content with Ham’s “book with all of the answers” response, I am not.

The debate’s official YouTube video description asks, “Is creationism a viable model in today’s modern scientific era?” It’s hard to say who really won the debate, since both will gain from the experience. Over time, evolution will become supported with overwhelming evidence, and creationism will dwindle. For now, the theory of creationism isn’t going anywhere.