The opening question to be debated was: “Is creation science
a viable model from which to do science in today’s world?”
Bill said no. But he
didn’t prove it. He produced evidence
that he thinks supports the no-God origins and contradicts the creationist’s
explanation for the world’s origins. But
he didn’t prove that the evidence is weighty enough to throw out creationism.
Ken said yes. But he
didn’t prove it. He produced evidence that
he thinks supports the creationist’s and contradicts the no-God origins explanation
for the world’s origins. But he didn’t
prove that the evidence is weighty enough to throw out old earth theories.
So the debate ought to have proceeded along the lines of weighing
the merits of the respective sets of evidence.
Some effort was given to that effect.
But it was more like apples and oranges.
I think much time was given to each one “preaching” from his own world
view; that is, simply declaring what he believes apart from the merits of the evidence. That made the “debate” more like one guy extolling
the virtues of apples and the other praising oranges. They didn’t mix well. Neither one effectively used the other one’s
words against his opponent.
Case in point. Bill
claimed he was a reasonable man and I believe he is. He simply refuses to consider possibilities of
origins that go beyond what reason can deduce from scientific observation. That’s not truly a reasonable position
though. It is too limited in scope, as I
will discuss in a moment. It was
meaningful that he distinguished between what science has shown and what
believers believe, for example that many people with religious beliefs also
hold to scientific world views. Even
many wonderful Christians believe in an old earth and an evolutionary process,
with faith that God chose to do it that way and not say so very clearly in his
biblical revelation.
Bill just doesn’t understand that all people are
religious. All people, even himself, put
faith in something. Bill’s creed says, “Seeing
is believing. I don’t have to believe
anything you can’t show me scientifically.”
But he doesn’t seem to realize that by believing in non-god explanations
of origins he is in fact believing in something that hasn’t been observed or proven. He used the word robust a lot to talk about
how strongly his theories are based on observable science. “Robust” is the closest the scientist can
come to a synonym for “absolute truth.” Funny how everyone needs a solid foundation.
But a sand pile can be robust. It just can't be solid.
He says he is humble enough to admit there are things we don’t
know. But he limits his knowing to what
scientists have shown by observation. Such
knowledge is too limited in scope. Historians
have also made observations, such as a man named Jesus really lived. He died on a cross and reliable witnesses against
all odds and social pressure testify that Jesus rose from the dead. There is reliable evidence that this is
so. Bill could know that and it would
change his world view to believe it. Then he would find himself to be a believing
Christian who believes in an old earth and an evolutionary process, with faith
that God chose to do it that way and not say so very clearly in His Biblical
revelation. Things may develop from
there as he studies and comes to a true spiritual understanding of our Holy
Scripture.
Now to Ken Ham’s case.
His preaching was more traditional as understood by Christians. Ken did a lot of Bible thumping. He made assertions based on God’s Word even
though the statements he made were theological and not really properly part of a
scientific debate on the viability of creationist origin explanations. But I believe he did this “foolish” thing
because of his faith in the power of God’s Word itself and the foolishness of
preaching to be the vehicle through which God works to bring souls to faith.
Ken’s objective then was not really to win the debate but to win Bill Nye to the
Christian faith. I have no objection to
this agenda. But it should be pointed
out that it added nothing to the debate scientifically even though the stated
purpose of the debate was to do science.
For the purposes of the debate itself I really wish Ken had brought
up the issue of irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution even
being possible. He missed a great
opportunity there. I wish he had said more things like, "The creationist
model predicts that for all the human cultures we already know, and for any we
may find, there will never be one with a history, written or oral, that is
demonstrably older than @ 4,000 years." I wish he had a strong geological
explanation for why the fossil layers have these strong demarcations between
simple and more complex organisms. I
wish he had explained the apparent age of the 9,000 year old tree that somehow
survived the flood, or how it survived the flood. I wish he had explained geologically how the
flood laid things down the way it did without more jumbling. Or else I wish he
had slides of evidence for actual jumbling.
I also wish that Ken had taken up the CSI illustration and
used it to show that physical evidence can tell us a lot about the recent past
because the conclusions drawn are based on recent scientific observations but
that evidence used to interpret the distant past is much more conjectural and
interpretive. You don't have to assume the life process of a blow fly the way
you have to assume the geological processes of a dynamically active young or
old earth.
I wish that Ken had told Bill that creation scientists are
just as enthusiastically driven to scientific exploration because we love to
discover How God did it. Bill really needed to hear that because he kept
hammering at the point that creationists are satisfied with religious answers
and therefore not driven to explore and welcome new discoveries. Bill was afraid that creationists would impede
the progress needed of technological advances.
Ken could have easily laid that fear to rest with a direct response such
as I have given above. But he only
hinted at it saying, “Creationists can be great scientists too, see this
example of the guy who invented this complex gear system for a satellite?”
Over all, I’d say it wasn’t really a debate. It turned out to be a shared platform for
assertions of opposing worldviews. But I
do hope and pray that the power of God’s Word will have some lasting impact for
good among those who heard it proclaimed.
I am glad the salvation message got put out there. Let those who have ears to hear, really
listen. And may God get all the glory
and praise.
Comments
Post a Comment