On Sunday, February 5, 2014 a much-publicized debate occurred between Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis & the Creation Museum. The event lasted about 2 1/2 hours and you can view the entire debate at YouTube HERE.
The ‘talk’ on the following day was similar to sportscasters after a big game. Everyone chimed in on how it should have gone and what could have been done different. Unlike a game, debates seldom have a clear ‘winner.’ A ‘winner’ of a debate is not always the truth. During this debate I watched some of the Twitter feeds. It appeared that both ‘sides’ thought their ‘champion’ produced better evidence.
So, this is my 2 cents!
Confrontation is sometimes necessary, but often does not change a person.
Everybody likes a good fight! Unless you’re the one losing the fight! Sometimes you have to stand up to the bully. Sometimes you have take up the ’cause.’ Edmund Burke reminds us that ‘all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’
But in most of my experience at confrontation, few times have I been able to sway the other person from their belief or behavior. Maybe it’s just me but it is hard to be confrontational and not appear angry or condescending. The Bible reminds us that ‘a soft answer turns away wrath’ and we are to approach people with a ‘meek and quiet spirit.’
This debate was the culmination of a youtube video where Bill Nye stated that ‘creationism is not appropriate for children’ (See his views HERE). Ken Ham challenged Bill to a debate and the stage was set. While I am glad they were able to face one another in a civil setting, I don’t think they swayed many to either side.
This being the case, many wonder if debates are a wise use of resources. I think it is. It’s important to stand up to wrong thinking. It’s important to explain the rationale of your own belief. A debate or confrontation will bring your beliefs down to your core belief system.
Debates do not generally change people’s views. However, the gospel does. The gospel is the ‘power of God unto salvation.’ I believe Ken Ham did a great job of explaining the Gospel. While his ‘evidence’ probably will not change people, the Gospel now has been explained to thousands of people who may never have heard a clear presentation.
My brother, Mike, was one of the 900 who watched the debate live (3rd row). Through some divine circumstances, he was one of about 50 who attended a pre-debate session and had prayer for Ken Ham. He shared what he thought in this blog: From the Third Row. The debate itself will not change lives, but Jesus can.
A person’s worldview affects everything about him.
How can two people look at the same evidence and get to two completely different conclusions? They start from a completely different worldview. Ken Ham continually cited His worldview: God and the Bible. He interprets the evidence through the lens of a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other words, a historical book helps him understand how the evidence got here – God made it. Bill Nye was a little more elusive but honestly stated that his worldview was what he could see and touch. So, he interprets how things got here by looking at the evidence – appears to have evolved.
One of the continual points of difference in the debate was in the matter of historical science. Ham explained that since none of us were around 35 billion years ago, we cannot say for certain that there was a ‘Big Bang.’ His belief is that the Bible was authored by an eyewitness to Creation and a worldwide flood so we should take His Word for it. Nye equated this as ‘disturbing’ because it reinterprets the evidence. I completely understand how Nye gets his conclusions. If you do not allow God into your worldview, all you have left is the evidence. And without a clarification to the evidence, you have to go where the evidence leads. That is how innocent people are sometimes placed in prison. Since you can only use the evidence provided in court, if the evidence points to guilt, he’s convicted. And until other evidence enters to refute it, they remain imprisoned. Nye’s worldview does not allow a God as Creator.
One of the issues that I think will be taken from this is how a Creation / Evolution worldview will affect future endeavors. Both debaters seemed concerned about the future of science. Bill Nye thought that if Creationism continued to be a belief system (even in the minority), it would keep America from leading in technology and innovation. His reasoning appeared to be that if we have an ‘answer’ (God) to all our questions, it will squelch our inquisitive nature to discover. When asked the questions ‘How did the matter that made the ‘Big Bang’ get here?’ and ‘How did evolution produce consciousness?’, his answer to both was ‘We don’t know.’ However, he encouraged the youth to discover the answer to these questions. Without a God to answer his questions, he reverted to the universe to answer his questions.
I would disagree with Nye’s concern. Even as a child, my curiosity was never squelched because I knew someone made some technology. I took many toys apart to see how they worked. I think the belief in an intelligent designer actually encourages exploration.
Ken Ham’s worldview included God and the Bible. His comment to Bill Nye’s ‘We don’t know’ was ‘We have a book, called the Bible…’ His concern was that if a godless, evolutionary curriculum continued to be taught in the classroom, no other alternative would influence the interpretation of evidence. Without the possibility of God, the evidence does not have a chance to show anything else but evolution. It would be like not allowing evidence into a courtroom that could sway a jury. My encouragement is to allow all worldviews into the room and let’s decide which one the evidence points to.
What did you think a Creation / Evolution Debate? Is it helpful or hurtful?
While I appreciate that you tried to make sense of the debate between EVOLUTION & CREATION. I fear that Ken Ham is taking the wrong approach to convey his message. Jesus taught us how to present the Gospel. We need to show people that they need a savior and let the Holy Spirit CHANGE their heart. In the same way we need to show Darwinists that their theory has failed – so they search for answers. Because they are come from a science perspective…we need to approach them from that angle and attack their foundation – what they call “evidence” for macro-evolution – and show them that there is NO evidence at all.
Evolutionists have convinced many people that there is “proof” for Macro-Evolution. This is NOT the case, many of the so called “proof experiments” have been proven false years ago (30, 40, even 50 years ago) but they are still being taught as facts in text books. We need to wake people up to the fact that Darwinist have been lying for years. We need to get people to do some scientific investigation for themselves.
We need to use stories (Jesus taught in parables) like the following to cause listeners to dig deeper…to question their paradigm.
In December 1989 near Boston a small group of scientists, including the leading evolutionist of the time, Stephen J. Gould, met to discuss the writings of Phil Johnson who called into question the lack of evidence to support Darwinian evolution. During this discussion the group witnessed the spectacle of the reform-minded evolutionist Gould as he fell apart when academically respectable critics appeared to be losing confidence in the Darwinian paradigm and it’s naturalistic base due to the lack of proven evidence. Gould’s final response was a desperate plea for more time, “science needs more time to find the evidence”, but that “never the less evolution was fact not myth.”
It’s been almost 150 years – common sense would lead one to think that we would have found something he could have used to defend his position, yet Gould’s only response was – “we need more time”.
When one of the foremost scholars on Darwinism (Richard Dawkins) was asked how life was formed on earth…His response was that “ALIENS” put us here. In other words… “Intelligent Beings” put us here. So why is Intelligent Design not an optional theory?
As we breakdown their “foundation” of their theory and we expose their weakness…They will be searching for answers. That’s when Jesus can move in their hearts…just like the woman at the well.
Read my article below and it may shed some light on why Darwinists “preach” what they preach.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/frank-maddawg-cugini/darwinism-a-pseudoscience/64355412896
Frank,
Good thoughts & good article link. When the weaknesses of evolution are revealed, they will not have a ‘plank’ to stand on and will be forced to look for a more stable ‘theory’ of origins. We need to put people in a position to see their need for real truth and need of a Savior.
Following the debate, many of us were second-guessing Ken Ham’s approach. Many things he could have said and others left unsaid. However, the debate was on the viability of Creationism in today’s society. Though he did attack evolution, his debate title was Creationism.
Though I think both debaters were less debating and more preaching, I think it will open up the conversation in the general public. I know one pastor who invited atheistic evolutionists to view the debate with him. This has opened up into very rewarding conversations. My brother’s school has a Philosophy club that is using the debate as a point of discussion in upcoming meetings.
My hope is that we all learn from the debate and continue to defend the faith and open up roads of discussion with those who need our Savior. Thanks for your comments.
For the next debate…we need to have Ravi Zacharias take on either Stephen J. Gould or Richard Dawkins. Preferably Dawkins because of his atheistic world view. Ravi would bring down the vail and reveal the deception behind the Church of Darwinism.
That would be an amazing debate. I have read Richard Dawkins & he is a compelling writer and brilliant mind, though deceived. Ravi is a modern day C.S. Lewis and then some. He clears up so many muddy waters. I listen to his podcasts nearly every day.