Reflection on the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: So…What are You Guys Debating About?
It’s been a while, but I finally got a chance to catch the Bill Nye the “Science Guy” and Ken Ham debate on the question: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” So, I have to say, it was one of the most tedious to watch. The debaters never really addressed the question on the table, they talked passed each other, and all they mainly offered their respective camp’s talking points.
Ham gave a well articulated presentation of young earth creation science, and none could have done better. However, that was not the question on the table (i.e. “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”). It is never about how many scientists believe in the model of young earth creationists; rather, the essence of the question is whether or not the evidence of origins in the universe points to intelligent causes. Nye mentioned the CSI television show; well, that forensic science they do is a search to see whether or not the evidence points to an intelligent cause. Is the blunt force trauma to the head caused by a person slipping on a wet floor, or the result of an assailant’s fist?
Nye provides hefty amounts of criticism against young earth creation and the very idea of an earth that is 6-10,000 years old, but this too fails to answer the question (i.e. “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”). In fact, the age of the earth has nothing to do with the question on the table. There are many old earth creationists who can accept the 4.6 billion year old earth held by modern scientists, but it is the very idea of Darwinian evolution— from one species of life bringing forth all other species via unguided processes of random variation (changes that occur when one generation of species reproduces another) and natural selection (i.e. the survival of the fittest.)—that they believe is flawed.
Rather than simply explain young earth creationism, I think Ham would have fared better to have used a more “big tent” approach in noting the age of the earth is an intramural debate within the intelligent design camp, and that creationists of all stripes find Darwinian evolution flawed.
One can even wonder whether or not Darwinian evolution is a viable model of origins for today’s modern scientific era? Even with an accepted old earth age of 4.5 billion years, the odds would be against randomly forming one simple protein molecule within that time frame. Other modern science discoveries such as the irreducible complexity of the cell, the genetic data encoded in DNA, the Cambrian explosion, and the development of flight in birds challenge the nineteenth-century evolutionary paradigm. It even stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to think life came from non-life and the life that came from non-life produced morals. Why not throw an intelligent cause on the table in the discussion on the origin of the universe? Why remain entrenched in philosophical naturalism?
“Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” I would say, “Yes.” Not necessarily young earth creationism, but whether or not science can allow for an intelligent cause for the origin of the universe. Whether or not the notion of a designer can be appealed to in the discussion of origins belongs to the realm of science is never really a “science” question, insofar as it is “science” in the sense of seeking knowledge about the universe relevant to fields of study like biology, chemistry, and physics. Neither is such a purely theological question. This is really a philosophy of science question. What is science? What belongs to the realm of science? Those are questions for the philosopher of science. Still, there are instances where people use science to determine intelligent causes (e.g. CSI forensic science, geology [is it a natural rock formation or a chiseled statue?], the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, etc.). So, we can appeal to intelligent causes in science research. What precludes the possibility of theorizing an intelligent cause for the origin of life? Science and the Bible actually go hand-in-hand. If the biblical propositions about God creating the universe and the creation testifying to the glory of the Maker are true (Gen. 1-2; Psa. 19:1-6), then one can expect to find order and design within the universe. There is then a theological foundation for the Christian to move forward into scientific research and the exploration of the universe. The more one learns about the universe the more one can understand about the wisdom and power of the Creator. On the other hand, if the universe is simply material stuff that came into being via random processes, why should anyone find order?
~ WGN
Ham gave a well articulated presentation of young earth creation science, and none could have done better. However, that was not the question on the table (i.e. “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”). It is never about how many scientists believe in the model of young earth creationists; rather, the essence of the question is whether or not the evidence of origins in the universe points to intelligent causes. Nye mentioned the CSI television show; well, that forensic science they do is a search to see whether or not the evidence points to an intelligent cause. Is the blunt force trauma to the head caused by a person slipping on a wet floor, or the result of an assailant’s fist?
Nye provides hefty amounts of criticism against young earth creation and the very idea of an earth that is 6-10,000 years old, but this too fails to answer the question (i.e. “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”). In fact, the age of the earth has nothing to do with the question on the table. There are many old earth creationists who can accept the 4.6 billion year old earth held by modern scientists, but it is the very idea of Darwinian evolution— from one species of life bringing forth all other species via unguided processes of random variation (changes that occur when one generation of species reproduces another) and natural selection (i.e. the survival of the fittest.)—that they believe is flawed.
Rather than simply explain young earth creationism, I think Ham would have fared better to have used a more “big tent” approach in noting the age of the earth is an intramural debate within the intelligent design camp, and that creationists of all stripes find Darwinian evolution flawed.
One can even wonder whether or not Darwinian evolution is a viable model of origins for today’s modern scientific era? Even with an accepted old earth age of 4.5 billion years, the odds would be against randomly forming one simple protein molecule within that time frame. Other modern science discoveries such as the irreducible complexity of the cell, the genetic data encoded in DNA, the Cambrian explosion, and the development of flight in birds challenge the nineteenth-century evolutionary paradigm. It even stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to think life came from non-life and the life that came from non-life produced morals. Why not throw an intelligent cause on the table in the discussion on the origin of the universe? Why remain entrenched in philosophical naturalism?
“Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” I would say, “Yes.” Not necessarily young earth creationism, but whether or not science can allow for an intelligent cause for the origin of the universe. Whether or not the notion of a designer can be appealed to in the discussion of origins belongs to the realm of science is never really a “science” question, insofar as it is “science” in the sense of seeking knowledge about the universe relevant to fields of study like biology, chemistry, and physics. Neither is such a purely theological question. This is really a philosophy of science question. What is science? What belongs to the realm of science? Those are questions for the philosopher of science. Still, there are instances where people use science to determine intelligent causes (e.g. CSI forensic science, geology [is it a natural rock formation or a chiseled statue?], the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, etc.). So, we can appeal to intelligent causes in science research. What precludes the possibility of theorizing an intelligent cause for the origin of life? Science and the Bible actually go hand-in-hand. If the biblical propositions about God creating the universe and the creation testifying to the glory of the Maker are true (Gen. 1-2; Psa. 19:1-6), then one can expect to find order and design within the universe. There is then a theological foundation for the Christian to move forward into scientific research and the exploration of the universe. The more one learns about the universe the more one can understand about the wisdom and power of the Creator. On the other hand, if the universe is simply material stuff that came into being via random processes, why should anyone find order?
~ WGN
Comments
Post a Comment