What do you get when you put a children’s-educational-scientist-teacher with a Bible-believing-Christian-creationist?
Lot’s of confused adults.
I just finished watching the almost 3-hour debate between humanist Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham and I’m truly confused. I’m confused not because of the content, but how a Christian answered and responded in a formal debate.
Bill Nye (B.S. degree in engineering) and Ken Ham (B.A.S., applied science) decided to meet in a debate format in Kentucky to discuss the merits of each of their positions. Except, Ham seem to follow an illogical process of his argument which relied on a handful of scientists and his website. Nye, on the other hand, relied on a body of evidence and scientific method that is affirmed by both secular and Christian scientists.
What was clear from this debate is that Ham gave a poor argument for a creationist theory of the formation of the earth. Creationists believe in the creation of the Earth that occurred over a period of 6 days. Nye countered that the earth is much older and we know through carbon dating and stellar age estimation. Ham tried to discredit dating methods as conflicted evidence. Even if you discount carbon dating, Nye used examples of dating by core samples and tree rings.
How did the rest of the debate go?
Ham often had trouble answering direct questions. Nye answered questions directly. Ham danced around direct questions such as, “Is the Bible 100% literal?” without giving answer. In another question and answer section, the following was posed: What would change your mind on your position? Ham deflected the question. However, Nye admitted what would change his mind if there was more compelling proof. At least Nye was willing to consider he could be wrong.
To discredit an old earth belief, Ham took specific examples of the science community reversing itself as proof that secular science cannot be trusted. In reality, those examples were isolated situations. Perhaps what was most troubling was Ham’s claim that this creationist vs. scientific community is about a greater agenda of secular science trying to change Christian belief and authority or morality. Ham’s spoke that there is secular agenda over the minds of our children. What nonsense!
Regrettably, Ham had to keep referring to his website for more information. Is this a debate or a plug for page clicks? Also, Ham explained larger scientific concepts with thin theological ideas that were taken out of context. Perhaps what was Nye’s most compelling argument in reply to Ham was:
I just want to remind us all there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion. But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old.
I was embarrassed to watch Ham cherry pick scientific methods, selectively use logic, present weak rebuttals to reasonable observation, and choose not to respond to direct questions. Since all truth is God’s truth, it is perfectly acceptable to believe that the earth is 4.5 billions of year old. It’s reasonable to believe that the Genesis account is not literal because the measure of a 24 hour “day” was not created till day two. It’s also reasonable to believe that God did not suspend the laws of gravity, matter, and nature to make it look like the earth was millions of years old, when in fact it is really 6,000 years old. At the same time, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. My faith is not threatened by evolution.
There are other methods to defend an alternative belief, but Ken Ham did not present his argument well. When we Christians enter into serious discussion, we must present the best of our critical thinking. If you are going to treat the Bible as a science book, then you have to play by the laws of science and not create your own.
In the end, the Bible explains the “why” of creation and science explains the “how”.
6 Comments
You should be embarrassed, YECs make up a great swath of Western Christianity, but not its entirely. For the most part, OECs have been content to let Ham and him blather on while sitting on their thumbs doing nothing. Don’t want to cause infighting among the elect. Don’t want to hurt the fellowship between the various Christian sects.
And in the meantime, the majority of those speaking out against Ham and people like him have been atheists and agnostics, giving rise to the idea that science has pitted itself against the faithful. This whole dichotomy that religion and science are enemies is one of Christianity’s making. Two nights ago that was finally put on display for the world to see, and much of Christendom is finally embarrassed. Well we have no sympathy. Your religion has a long history of mocking, suppressing, and opposing the non-devout. A little embarrassment is in order.
“This whole dichotomy that religion and science are enemies is one of Christianity’s making.”
Nonsense. It’s closer to the inverse. Ham and all other Christians believe that science and Christian faith are complimentary.
I’m talking about actual science. Not Jesus-magic amusement park science.
So let’s recap. You say “This whole dichotomy that religion and actual science are enemies is one of Christianity’s making.”
Yeah, it’s still nonsense. “Christianity” does not make such a dichotomy.
So when Ken Ham says that the entire fields of biology, cosmology, geology, astronomy, genetics, human geography, anthropology, zoology, palaeontology, archaeology, and ornithology are no only wildly off base, but actively lying to lead people away from the truths found in his particular holy book, that isn’t creating the dichotomy, that’s….what exactly?
You can whine all you want about how it’s nonsense. Anything to avoid making an actual rebuttal I suppose.
I don’t know what all Ken Ham says, and not interested. It’s beside the point. Ken Ham is not “Christianity.” Ken Ham is not the Church.
I didn’t call your assertions whining. I prefer to stick with logical discourse than degenerate to meaningless fluff. But I did rebut your assertion. I told you that Christianity does not make the dichotomy that you suppose.