Science or Religion

When you think about it, Ken Ham is saying that what he says is true simply because you can't say it's not true. He cites all of these scientists (that may be biased) and refers to all these papers that all somehow relate to him and his work. It seems like a theory based on what a few friends have said, not actual observation. Bill Nye, on the other hand, has brought evidence to the table from things he found just before he arrived. He relates evolution to observational science. But the one thing that strikes me as intriguing is how he says that he will accept Ken Ham's theory when it is supported by observations. This makes me think that religion and science are polar opposites. One is the narrow minded, strict theory based on word. The other is he open minded, constantly seeking perfection theory based on word and fact