Bill Nye, The Science Guy, astutely observed, during the creation debate, that those watching would be hearing two different stories. Indeed we did. More on that at the end. For now, I’d like to offer reflections on some of the things which were said, should have been said, and, since I’m here, which I would like to say.
1. As I watched I knew that the skeptics would, and indeed they did, pounce on Ken Ham’s shameless appeals to the Scriptures; in one instance I saw a picture of someone who wrote on a napkin, “I’m God, and I wrote this napkin. Do whatever is written on this napkin.” Â These sort Â critiques of Ham “reaching for the Bible” as the authority are baseless, because the entire creation/evolution debate is one of authority.Â Ken Ham reaches for the Bible as his authority and is belittled as a simpleton, but no one points out that Bill Nye reaches for the authority of humanistic naturalism.Â Â Is matter all there is? Where did everything come from? How did something come from nothing? Why should we believe that there has been no divine intervention in the history of the world? Whether Ham answers these questions or Nye, both are “reaching” for an authority outside of themselves. Ham for the Word of God Almighty, and Nye for the naturalistic worldview. The latter denies any supernatural, the former embraces both the natural realm and the supernatural realm.
2. Though he was mocked for the simplicity of the statement, “Well, Bill, there’s this book,” I would have liked Ken Ham to taken that line of thought farther (or is it further?) than he did. The question of authority as mentioned before is really the issue here, as Ham noted. However, our authority as believers is not merely because we have a book.Â 1 Corinthians 15:17, 19 says, “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. … If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” The authority for God’s Word culminates in the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ. This event, though historic, is well-documented and was well-witnessed. I would advocate that everything in this debates hinges on Christ’s resurrection. Because He is alive, He is validated as the Son of God and thereby the histories and prophecy’s of the Old Testament are validated.
3. As far as weaknesses of the night, I did not enjoy the debate format, I felt it left too little dialogue between the two gentlemen. However, even though they each seemed to give rather rehearsed statements, the content that each offered was well presented and I thought it was a pleasing presentation. However, both gentlemen used a sort of “bandwagon” argument to defend why their position was the valid position. Just because there are lots of scientists that are either creationists or evolutionists, doesn’t validate the individual theory. Democracy doesn’t decide truth . . . the truth does. The majority doesn’t decide what 2+2 should equal . . . the laws of nature and of nature’s God does! I would have liked to have seen a format that would allow the two men to have engaged each other a bit more.
4. The Twitter hashtag #creationdebate went viral last night, and much of the comments were unfairly demeaning towards Mr. Ham. In essence, he was mocked for continually appealing to the Bible and not responding to Mr. Nye’s questions (see points 1 and 2). However, I did notice that Mr. Nye avoided a very poignant question which was directed at him. Ken Ham asked, and was never satisfactorily answered, “How do you account for the laws of logic and laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God?” Nye’s answer was about as robust as a deflated balloon. Further, on the question of why we should take the Bible literally, I think Nye demonstrated a poor grasp of Ham’s rather dandy answer. Again, however, Ham could have more pointedly addressed the fact that this viewpoint is not “Ken Ham’s viewpoint,” nor is Ham’s interpretation of the Bible true becauseÂ he says it is, but rather because this is (by and large) the Biblical and Historical viewpoint. Ham has not concocted some unorthodox view; rather the truths of this viewpoint are Â fundamentally Biblical.
5. One other thing that I think was greatly overlooked was Mr. Nye was adamantly imploring the audience to “consider the consequences” of teaching creationism. Indeed we should. Mr. Ham hinted at it, but I wish he would have hit this topic more squarely. I, along with Nye, would love for people to consider the consequences to our country and our world of teaching creationism; however, I’d like us to consider the consequences of teaching evolutionism. Evolutions idea of natural selection naturally leads to the question of “what ought to be the basis for morality?” If I’m merely a superior animal, then I am answerable to no man, and I can do whatever I desire. Nye and evolutionists can not, and will never, find any reason for any code of morality in their worldview. Further, natural selection was one of the driving principles of Nazi Germany and the Eugenics movement of Margaret Sanger. Yep, I did just drag Nazi Germany into this discussion. Since man has evolved to the point of being able to reason, it is now our responsibility to “perfect” the human race; which basically ends baldy for those whom the governments deems inferior. THIS is one the consequences, among others just as dastardly, which the naturalistic evolutionary worldview leads to.
6. Finally, if we are to be fair and equitable, in our PUBLIC (emphasis emphatically added) schools we must recognize that both evolution and creation (and I suppose any other view of origins) will need to be presented toâ€“as Rush Limbaugh calls themâ€“the skulls full of mush. We assume that religion can’t be taught in the schools, but we are already teaching the religion of Secular Humanist naturalism. My contention is that the arguments for and against both evolution and creation will need to be presented fairly, and allow the little tykes to sort through the philosophical carnage. However, in private education, or home education . . . we have another story. Again, Bill Nye told us we would hear two stories. One was the fable, derived from a false narrative. The other was the legend of the ages, which has come down to us through history, preserved by God’s own hand and is the correct narrative.