Creation debate recap: Bill Nye invites us to explore the world, Ken Ham does not

140203123105-science-guy-creationism-story-top

[Note: This article is also available on the Huffington Post.]

It’s unlikely anybody’s mind was changed by the creation debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.

Ham behaved pretty much as expected, largely skirting the scientific argument and framing the debate as one of competing worldviews. He attacked evolutionary theories from 1836, rather than address the current science head on. His diversionary tactics were probably enough to keep the largely sympathetic crowd at the Creation Museum from getting too restless.

For his part, Bill Nye picked away at the logic of young-earth creationism, using the very thing Ham accused evolutionary theory of lacking: observational science. Among other things, Nye highlighted a number of famous trees whose age puts them on the earth long before the cataclysmic flood in Ken Ham’s chronology.

It seemed to me the debate went pretty badly for Ham, especially considering that it took place on his home turf. But then again, I have no problem believing that God is the “ultimate authority,” as Ham puts it, AND that evolution was the means by which God brought the universe into being.

To me, the “age of the earth” debate is fairly straightforward. We know the speed at which light travels. We can calculate the distance between us and other galaxies, including one that’s a whopping 60 million light years away. Which means the image of this galaxy captured by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1995 took 60 million years to get here.

Unless you want to argue that God designed the universe to look older than it really is — that is, that God wove dishonesty and deceit into the very fabric of his creation — then it seems to me that young-earth creationism has a big problem on its hands.

The question of human origins is, admittedly, a bit more complex for Christians. But the religious implications of us descending from a bunch of apes are not insurmountable, as Peter Enns demonstrates in his book, The Evolution of Adam. Besides, as Bill Nye pointed out a couple of times during the debate, there are billions of devoutly religious people on this planet who don’t insist on a young earth or a particular view of the origins of the universe.

But what struck me more than anything about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye was the very different posture each took toward the pursuit of knowledge and the virtue of curiosity.

More than once, Bill Nye addressed the audience directly, urging them to get out there and explore the universe for themselves. “Let’s keep looking,” he said. “Let’s keep searching.”

If Ken Ham had a recurring catchphrase during the debate, it was, “There’s a book about that, and it already has the answers.”

(For the record, the Bible is not a book about science.)

At one point, Ham and Nye were asked if there was anything that could ever change their minds. Ham’s answer was, in effect, no. Bill Nye, on the other hand, said he needed just one piece of evidence.

One of these two men was there to nurture curiosity. The other was there to stifle it.

One of these two men demonstrated a desire to keep on learning, to be shaped, challenged, and inspired by new discoveries. The other took a more defensive posture, treating scientific exploration with suspicion, hostility, even contempt.

I know which of these two men I want my daughter to emulate — if not with regard to faith, then with regard to intellectual inquiry. I want her to cultivate an insatiable hunger for knowledge, an unrelenting curiosity that propels her out into the world, an inner voice that says, “Come on! There’s more to discover.”

Growing up, I was fortunate enough to attend a Christian college that had made peace with the science of evolution. I remember what our president used to say: “We’ll turn over every rock in search of truth, because we’re confident that nothing’s going to jump out from underneath and eat God. And if something does, we should worship that instead.”

That’s a journey Ken Ham doesn’t want us to go on.

And that’s why Bill Nye won the creation debate. Even though he’s agnostic, it seems to me that he is closer to the creative, fearless, adventurous heart of God than Ken Ham has ever been.

10 thoughts on “Creation debate recap: Bill Nye invites us to explore the world, Ken Ham does not

  1. I didn’t listen to the debate, but I’ve always thought that if faith in the person of Jesus isn’t enough to withstand the discoveries of science, something is wrong. I guess I see the words of the Bible as part of the struggle of humans to understand their place in the universe. I think we miss so much by focusing on a literal interpretation.

    The story of “the fall” to me is a story of the awakening of consciousness and thus fits right in to developing from an ape. It’s the story of becoming aware of the other and that our actions have consequences for those others.

    If our interpretations are shown to be wrong now and then, that doesn’t say anything about God but about us who “see through a glass darkly.”

  2. Good summary, Ben.

    Debating creation seems to me a waste of time if one is supposed to be expecting an answer to come to the top at the end. If instead it is an exercise in intellectual honesty then the debate can be very fruitful.

    The real issue is whether a person belongs to Christ, not whether the person believes in young earth, old earth, evolution or whatever.

    Cheers,
    Tim

  3. If you think that Ken Hams version of Christianity is a barrier to otherwise, sane reasonable people deciding to accept Christ as their Savior then you definitely are not seeing the forest for the trees.

    Here’s the number one reason that people like myself reject the Christian religion:

    Because the idea that two thousand years ago in the Middle East desert some ethereal ‘Being’ decided to turn itself into a man and trot around among a small group of superstitious, ignorant, illiterate peasants–perform a few magic tricks while leading them to believe that the world was about to end– and ultimately and most importantly to allow his own creation to nail him to a tree and savagely beat himself to death as some kind of a barbaric blood atonement for the forgiveness of their supposed sins. A blood sacrifice of himself to himself at the hands of his own creation. Sins that were inherited when a man picked some fruit from a magic tree in. a magic garden four thousand years earlier.
    This belief is, without a doubt, the single most preposterous, outrageous, absurd, asinine, ignorant pile of Stone Age lunacy that the human mind has ever concocted in our entire history on planet Earth.

    A blood sacrifice offered up to the Diety in the sky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

    Are you kidding me!!!!!????

    Christians, until you have the courage to face the outlandish cave man nuttery that lies at the very heart of your religion, and explain how it is not staggeringly absurd to believe that the blood of some god/human hybrid hanging to a tree in ancient Palestine has some magic powers, then you are NEVER going to be able to have an honest dialogue about your beliefs.

    You need to understand how preposterous that your religion sounds to many people.

    And stop accusing non believers of describing a ‘caricature’ of your religion.
    The Christian religion is found on the primitive ignorance of an ancient, goat sacrificing culture who believed in the magic of blood sacrifice. It already IS a caricature!!!!!!!!!

  4. I find it poor logic to be asked if a theory is viable and respond with one’s opinion of the current state of educational system. I feel his representation of the Creationist was a poor one and focused more on attacking the sources of sides. Facts should be impartial. I don’t appreciate phrases like, “The right way to think.”

  5. I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here.
    The sketch is attractive, your authored material stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get bought an shakiness over that you wish be delivering the following.
    unwell unquestionably come further formerly again since exactly
    the same nearly a lot often inside case you shield this hike.

  6. Pingback: Why you might have to choose between science and faith « Ben Irwin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s