Keep Your Chin Up, Kentucky. We Still Love You.

bill-nye-ken-ham-debateReflections on the Creation/Evolution Debate

By Michael Wren

If you did not watch the debate, which took place at the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky, you can find the entire event on YouTube for a short time.  Like most debates, last night’s event featuring Bill Nye and Ken Ham is unlikely to change very many minds.  Debates generally don’t change very many minds.  However, if they are good debates, they bring the core issues to the fore for consideration and reflection.  This debate was no exception.  Neither Nye nor Ham had much chance of making an impression on the opposing constituency, but their debate was revealing.  Here are a few reflections.

1)      The question posed for debate favored Bill Nye from the start.  The question was “Is creation a viable model of human origins in today’s modern world?”  In a debate, the affirmative is always more difficult to defend than the negative.  It is much easier to shoot holes in something than it is to demonstrate that a position is without flaws.  Ham had a considerable challenge in front of him.

2)      Both debaters focused upon their strengths during their 30 minute presentations.  Ham pressed home the point that observations must be interpreted, and when you’re talking about interpreting the past, presuppositions play a major role in interpretation.  He also put more of a focus on biology, where Answers in Genesis has done considerable research developing a different model of the development of life than the evolutionary model.  Nye, on the other hand, stressed the point that evidence from geology and astronomy render to possibility of a young Earth untenable.  Since the question involved whether Young Earth Creationism was viable, he clearly felt this was all he needed to win the debate.

3)      Neither debater did well in countering the other’s main arguments.  Nye failed to adequately answer Ham’s criticism that presuppositions influence the interpretation of data.  He ridiculed the distinction Ham made between observational science and historical science (which was Ham’s way of pointing out this problem), but he did not answer the criticism.  Ham, on the other hand, did not answer in detail the evidence Nye brought forward arguing for an old universe and an old earth.  Ham pointed out the unreliability of various dating methods, but did not counter the critical point that the layering of rock layers and ice layers seems to indicate on old earth.  I know Answers in Genesis has theories on these points, but he did not offer them in detail.  This left his defense unsatisfying.

4)      Toward the end of the rebuttal period, one of the core issues finally came out.  Nye professed to be completely unsatisfied with Ham’s arguments because he has not explained how “natural laws have changed.”  He then claimed Ham was arguing for “magic.”  In other words, any force operating in the universe apart from the laws of nature can only be described as “magic.”  But this is the core issue, isn’t it?  And this was one of Ham’s main points, though he could have made it better.  If you believe in the existence of God, you believe in a power that can and does operate outside of the laws of nature.  So any involvement that God had in creating the universe will be basically unobservable.  You will not be able to account for it through scientific analysis.  Nye does not believe in God, and for this reason, he cannot accept that scientific observation will only be able to tell us so much about the origin of the universe.  Based on the speed of light, the universe does appear to be 13.7 billion years old.  But what if God created the universe out of nothing?  It would still appear to be 13.7 billion years old based on its size.  The existence of God is one of the core issues in the debate.

5)      Nye shared that one of his greatest concerns was that creation science would blunt the minds of America’s next generation and impede the development of technology and medicine.  However, he failed to answer Ham’s challenge to provide one example of a modern technological development that a creationist could not have developed.  Here, Nye failed to make his point.

Louisville_skyline_night

Louisville, Kentucky. A great city.

6)      Nye clearly shares the opinion of many in the scientific community that creation science is nothing more than ignorant, backwoods fundamentalism.  This is nothing new.  In the famous Scopes trial of 1925, defense attorney Clarence Darrow ridiculed creationists as “bigots and ignoramuses” who are retarding the progress of American culture.  Nye followed this same tactic.  He repeatedly referred to Kentucky, where the Creation Museum is located, and ridiculed the state for having no programs in nuclear medicine.  He was clearly implying that Kentucky is backward, partly because of the influence of the creation museum, and that if it wanted to make an impact in the modern world, it would have to grow out of this fundamentalist conviction about creation.  First of all, I think Nye overestimates the museum’s influence in the state, particularly in its major universities.  I doubt very many at UK and U of L are sympathetic to Ham’s views.  Secondly, Ham offered substantive arguments.  Ridiculing him just makes Nye look arrogant.  For the record, I love the state of Kentucky.  My family and I spent eight of the best years of our lives there.   We still love you, even if Bill Nye doesn’t.

7)      This point just irked me.  Nye repeatedly maintained that Ham was arguing that only the Bible in its English translation was authoritative to solve the problem of origins.  In other words, he views Answers in Genesis as nothing but KJV only fundamentalism.  For the record, the Creation Museum repeatedly refers to the original Hebrew and demonstrates no preoccupation with the KJV.  Then again, Nye admitted he was no theologian.  That was obvious to anyone who watched the debate.

As I reflect on the debate, I wish Ham had presented a thorough argument about a creationists’ perspective on astronomy and geology, because this was Nye’s focus, and this is the area that most Christians who have any knowledge of science have questions about.  Perhaps this debate will provide enough of a platform for Answers in Genesis, and others, to pursue those questions more thoroughly.  Nye, on the other hand, came off as arrogant and unwilling to consider the substantive argument offered by his interlocutor.  Unfortunately, I’m not surprised.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Keep Your Chin Up, Kentucky. We Still Love You.

  1. pastorlepley

    I appreciate your perspective on the debate. I agree that debates seldom, if ever, change minds but they do offer platforms for further discussion. It would have greatly helped Ham’s case if he pointed out that some 3,500 years ago Moses said that on Day Two of the creation account, the universe “expanded.” That was “predictive,” since it was foretold by a prophet 3,400 years before a scientist noticed. We also have multiple references in the Old Testament referring to the earth as a sphere, also “predictive.” I hope this debate gives Christians one more good reason to learn more about the scriptures and sciences because the world we live in is both/and (thank-you Ken Ham), not either/or (sorry Bill Nye).

    Reply
  2. pastorlepley

    Reblogged this on On Our Origins and commented:
    I appreciate your perspective on the debate. I agree that debates seldom, if ever, change minds but they do offer platforms for further discussion. It would have greatly helped Ham’s case if he pointed out that some 3,500 years ago Moses said that on Day Two of the creation account, the universe “expanded.” That was “predictive,” since it was foretold by a prophet 3,400 years before a scientist noticed. We also have multiple references in the Old Testament referring to the earth as a sphere, also “predictive.” I hope this debate gives Christians one more good reason to learn more about the scriptures and sciences because the world we live in is both/and (thank-you Ken Ham), not either/or (sorry Bill Nye).

    Reply
    1. michaelwren2013 Post author

      I agree that neither of these guys are qualified to debate the science, and I agree that Ham “adds” to what the Bible says. Personally, I think he draws too much evidence from the genealogies in Genesis. I would push back the date of creation to somewhere further back. And you are correct. Many, probably most Christians reject a young earth creation view. However, I happen to agree with Ham that a young earth creation view is more consistent with the teachings of Scripture. Both Jesus and Paul considered Adam and Eve and and the events of Genesis 1-3 to be historically factual. Jesus asserts his view of marriage based upon the presupposition that Adam and Eve actually existed and were married. Paul asserts his view on the atonement (!) based upon an actual, historical sin in the Garden of Eden. Allegorizing the early Genesis narratives is convenient, but theologically very dangerous. If you begin allegorizing what Scripture considers factual, the reader is put in the driver’s seat to determine what is true, rather than the text God has revealed. I’m not OK with that.

      Reply
  3. Jim Poor

    I did not see the debate, so I cannot comment on that. I can comment, however, on Pastor Michael’s comments. He (as usual) has very well thought out responses to what he has heard or seen. There is really not much of a “debate” about creation for me. The first words in the Bible, “In the beginning, God created . . . ” tells me all I need to know about creation. Now, I also realize that people (like Nye) who do not believe in God or his Word will have to look for other answers to explain where (and when) the universe came to be. Praise God for his wonderful creation! Jim Poor

    Reply
  4. Garry Jones

    I don’t think Ken Ham was trying to win the debate because neither point of view can be proven by observation, much less with the time limit imposed. His ministry exists to share the gospel of Jesus Christ and that was what he did during the debate. He also referred many times to his website for more info to the few who may be curious to learn more. While I was disappointed over the same points already mentioned in which Ham could have done better, I applaud him for sticking to his purpose of giving the truth/power of the gospel.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s