My Thoughts on the Nye/Ham Debate

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.