Last week the internet was all abuzz over the hard-to-take-serious debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye (“the science guy”). I’ve got a bucket-load of thoughts about the debate which I’ll mostly keep to myself. Though I’ll remark here that I basically share the sentiments of the academic community which is that this debate by and large ignored the reflective and careful views which stand between the two extremes represented that night (naturalism on the one side and young earth creationism on the other).
If you were one of the unfortunately ones, obligated for whatever reason you had to watch the debate, no doubt you picked up on Ham’s continued ascertain that “we have a Book for that” every time Nye couldn’t answer a question. He was of course referring to the Bible. Now this irked me a little which might cause someone to wonder why a Christian referring to the Bible would irk a fellow evangelical, Bible-Believing Christian like myself?
But even if you agree with Ham, you should be irked too. And here’s why.
If what Ken Ham believes the Bible teaches about creation is true – that creation happened six thousand years ago – then the science should confirm that hypothesis. Ham knows this and does believe (or says he believes) that the science supports his interpretation of the Bible.
But if that is true, if the scientific evidence supports a young earth, then wouldn’t Ham have been able to appeal to the scientific data, and not the Bible, to show that the evidence supports a young earth?
The debate between Ham and Nye was one between a secular scientist and a religious fundamentalist over the question of whether “Young Earth Creationism Was A Viable Option.” I would think that for Ham, to defend that Young Earth Creationism is a viable option for the scientific community and for science classes in school, I would think that he would endeavor to make a case for Young Earth Creationism from science, not the Bible. If YEC is to be a scientifically viable option, it would have to be shown scientifically to be so.
The fact that Ham continued to appeal to “a Book” and not science just further suggests to me that the science does not support a Young Earth model and that perhaps, rather most likely, Ham has misinterpreted the Bible.
The best thing about the debate, IMO, is that they were both using Mac’s. In that regard, Ham and myself see eye-to-eye.