I watched the debate between Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye the Science Guy. There has been much talk from both camps about how each debater did, what one should have said and another shouldn't have said. I don't want to get into all that... I want to take a step back and consider from a wider angle why this debate was so unique and why perhaps it left so many people unsatisfied.
1. THE DEBATERS
First let me admit that both of these men are smart and I respect them both for their contribution to their respective fields. However, they are not experts. Ken Ham is a missionary evangelist who uses the Genesis account of creation to tell people about Jesus. That's why he came to America (that's what he did in this debate and regardless of any other performance, that was the highlight of this entire event!). He has a bachelors degree in applied science and a teaching certificate. Bill Nye is most known for his children's TV shows about science. He has a bachelors in mechanical engineering. Neither have done many, if any formal debates. And both came into the debate with preconceived agendas. Nye's: The rejection of evolution is ruining America’s global competitiveness by weakening science education. Ham's: The Bible is completely true, period. They both view their audience to be "young people". Because of this they both lost sight of the topic of the debate, but I'll address that later.
2. THE AUDIENCE
I'm not talking about the audience at the Creation Museum packed with supporters for Ken Ham and 3 fans of Bill Nye. I'm talking about the viewing audience. To date the video has been viewed or partially viewed 830,293 times in 3 days. This is huge for a debate video. The uniqueness about this is that people who don't normally watch debates, were watching this one. For example the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox about the existence of God has around 500,000 views in 2 YEARS. (I would highly recommend watching this!) My point is this, the expectations of the viewing audience was as varied as the topics that were covered. Some think that point of a debate is to change the mind of the other side. Some think it is to point out the fallacies of the other side. Some think it is to prove your own position is true. And some just can't understand why we all just can't get along and stop arguing!
3. THE TOPIC
The published topic of the debate was "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" Here's where things really got off the rails... The "creation model" was not formally defined. In the first five minutes of each presenter's speeches, they were talking about text books, different definitions of science, Noah's ark, C.S.I. (TV show), MRI machines, and bow ties. They never landed on what they were debating. The whole night they danced around from ice cores to kinds vs. species, and light-years to fossils. I walked away with a lot of facts, evidences and arguments, but I didn't feel like they really addressed the question.
4. THE REAL ISSUE
The real issue isn't one of science, it is about foundation. Both gave loads of evidence--compelling evidence, but both were still left with gaps--unanswered questions. Herein lies the fundamental difference between their view points--the foundational issue: How each one goes about investigating the unanswered questions. For the evolutionist there are some assumed truths: billions of years, natural processes, and no God (no supernatural). For the creationist there are some assumed truths: the Bible is true, and God is creator and sustainer of the universe.
For example when Bill Nye was asked what caused the "Big Bang", he said, "I don't know!" Evolutionists are convinced of the process that it used (billions of years, natural process, and no supernatural involvement), but have no answer for the cause. Creationist are just the opposite. Ask a creationist, "What caused the 'Big Bang'", and they will tell you confidently of the cause, GOD. But what they won't be able to explain the process (other than God spoke it).
Another example could be the age of the earth. For the creationist the assumption is the conclusion: young earth. This will lead to a specific interpretation of evidences and processes. For the evolutionist, the assumption is the process: no God and natural process. This will lead to a specific interpretation of the evidence: billions of years.
Both require a belief in something. Bill Nye believes that the universe created itself, therefore matter and energy are either timeless or supernatural themselves. While Ham (and I) believe that matter and energy are finite and a Supernatural Being (God) created everything.
The ultimate good of this debate was that the Gospel was shared to a huge viewing audience, but in addition to that, I hope this debate caused people to be aware of their assumptions. We all have them--choose yours wisely.
My children have been gobbling up a series called Jonathan Park which is produced by Vision Forum. After listening to episode after episode, my eyes have been opened to the "proofs" around our natural world that support both an intelligent design as well as a global worldwide flood. While I agree with you that Ham preached God and emphasized creationism, I do not feel he adequately represented creation scientist. I kept waiting for him to refer to Mt. St. Helens and how after such a horrific event, nature is rebounding, proving that sometimes radical change doesn't take millions of years. I kept waiting for him to reference some of the phenomenal species in our world around us that testify to an intelligent creator; there's just no explanation to explain their complex abilities. But he didn't. He just kept saying, the Bible says. I think our world, including believers needs to know there is more than that. Yes, the Bible, but also look around you. There's proof here and proof there. Ham didn't every touch on these things, and I think an opportunity was missed.
ReplyDeleteThanks Don. Enjoyed and appreciated your perspective shared here.
ReplyDelete