There was something for both sides in the Ham/Nye Creation-Evolution debate. Both sides got international exposure for their particular positions but Ham won on points although he did not get a grand slam. Some evolutionists think Nye “ate a Ham sandwich” but they are living in a dream world.
Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation. He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim. However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.
Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.
Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.
Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate. The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.
The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.
Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.
Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.
Ken made a major mistake when he did not respond to Nye’s ridiculous suggestion that every land plant on earth was in the Ark. Noah did not take the plants on the Ark since they could easily survive the Flood via seeds and roots. Besides, God made His intentions clear in Gen. 6:17 when He said, “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” Plants don’t have “the breath of life.”
Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?
Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.
The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”
Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!
Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken.
(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”
Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.
Fact, Fraud or Faith?
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.