Evolution vs. Creation debate

Debate between Bill Nye, the ‘science guy’ and Christian author Ken Ham questions Biblical Creationism in light of scientific theory of origins of universe.  Moderator Tom Foreman begins with this question, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?

The debate begins with opening statements by Ken Ham wherein, Ham states his belief that, “Science has been highjacked by secularists.”

He asserts that, “It doesn’t matter whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist, you can be a great scientist.”

But, Ham wants to make clear that, “Molecules-to-man evolution belief has nothing to do with developing technology.”

He believes that our origins are unknown, as we cannot observe them because they are the past of the matter, whether billions of years ago or thousands of years ago.  He presents a slide stating that:

Public school textbooks are using the same word science for observational and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural. They present molecules-to-man evolution as fact. They are imposing the religion of naturalism/atheism on generations of students.”

Ham concludes that, “Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era.

Cornell graduate Bill Nye opens with the observation that only one person besides himself was wearing a bow tie.  He proceeds to tell a story about his grandfather having to resort to getting an undertaker to tie his bow tie by reluctantly lying on a bed.  Nye tells the story to give the audience something to think about, that is also memorable.  He continues, “So, here tonight we’re going to have two stories and we can compare Mr. Ham’s story to a story from what I will call the outside, from mainstream science.”

Nye asks, “Does Ken Ham’s creation model hold up? Is it viable?

He assumes that the audience would be home watching CSI if they were not there at the debate.  And, on CSI, “There is no distinction made between historical science and observational science.”

These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham,” Nye continues, as, “We don’t normally have these anywhere in the world except here.”
Natural laws that applied in the past apply now,” he states, and, “That’s how we made all these discoveries that enabled all this remarkable technology.”

Mr. Nye attempts to discredit Biblical testimony of a world-wide flood and Noah’s Ark by stating that 14,000 animals and, “Every plant under water,” would not fit on a, “500 ft. wooden boat,” for a whole year.

Is that really reasonable,” Nye asks.

He points to fossils found in layers in the Grand Canyon, with none crossing over to a higher level.  If there was a big flood on Earth, Nye believes that the animals would have swum up to a higher layer, but evidence suggests that none did.  “If you could find evidence of that, my friends, then you could change the world,” Nye asserts.

He states that there are, “Billions of people in the world who are deeply religious,” who do not accept Ken Ham’s model.

The people that Nye refers to do not accept that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and this belief is concerning to him because technology is what makes the U.S. a ‘world leader’ in Nye’s estimation.  But if we, “Continue to eschew science,” and try to divide it into historical and observational categories, we will not move forward and, “Embrace natural laws,” nor make new discoveries and, “Stay ahead,” Nye concludes.

As I consider the opening statements of these two well-respected individuals, I must conclude Mr. Ham to be the winner of the debate.  Mr. Ham has a great point about the line of distinction between historical and observational science. Bill Nye cannot prove that Darwin’s theory of Evolution of the species is fact.  And, chances are, the animals that Mr. Nye refers to as not swimming up the fossil layers were not capable of doing so because they succumbed to the great flood.  Even more interesting, many ancient texts refer to a great flood on Earth and there is much evidence for mass die-offs of species found in the fossil record. There have also been major recent discoveries of sunken cities along coastlines around the world.  And radiocarbon dating has been shown to be imperfect as a measure of age, at best.

To further illustrate, I looked up Genesis 6:15, which gives a description of Noah’s Ark, with measurements given in cubits. According to this verse, the Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high.  A cubit is measured by the length of a man’s arm from elbow to tip of middle finger, thus estimated to be approximately 18 inches in length. Noah’s Ark was huge and multi-storied by these measurements, something like 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, a very large vessel. I don’t think that Mr. Nye has successfully disproven Noah’s Ark.

Despite the uncertainty of current, main-stream theories held by Mr. Nye to be 100% true, these theories have not, in my estimation been proven. Nye calls them natural laws, but his ideas appear to be more like naturalistic theories based on rationalistic dogma in the age of scientific materialism.

I also found Nye’s opening remarks concerning his grandfather’s bow tie to be irrelevant and patronizing at the same time.  The attitude that he assumed was one of arrogance and contempt towards those who would question main-stream scientific theories about the origins of humans from molecules, with no support from Creation.

I’d also like to point out the coverage of this debate by the Young Turks, as I believe it illustrates the blind acceptance that our culture tends to bestow upon modern scientific dogma.

The Young Turks host is of the opinion that Bill Nye was debating using ‘facts’, whereas Ken Ham only debated based upon his own agenda. She believes that Mr. Ham fears that if, “We start accepting evolution and we start to reject the literal interpretation of the Bible, well the literal interpretation of the Bible will be irrelevant and morality that is dictated by their religious doctrine will either cease to exist or it will become irrelevant in the eyes of people.”

I believe that morality is both intricately connected with Natural Law and also with the Bible and many other ancient religious and philosophical texts.  But, modern, social Darwinists would like for us to believe that we’re merely automatons to be tinkered with and tweaked to some state of supposed artificial, man-made perfection. The consequences of our ignorance are continually being shown to us as wars rage world-wide.

She continues by pointing out the argument between the two about the big bang theory and shows a clip where Nye asks how Creationism accounts for the celestial bodies, “Moving further and further apart and what function does that serve in the grand design?

Nye presents this as a fact but there is evidence to the contrary.  He uses astronomer Edwin Hubble’s theory of red-shift to back this idea up. I would point to the work of astronomer Halton C. Arp and recent findings by NASA scientists based on observing the Andromeda galaxy that moves synchronistically over vast regions of space, but remains connected through observed filaments to dispute the idea that red-shift indicates distance of expansion. Nye says that Hubble found that the stars are in his words, “Moving apart,” but what he actually observed was that the stars were shifted red and he assumed that that meant they were moving away from us. Arp showed empirically that nebulas were connected with parts of themselves that were differently shifted. He proposed that red shift has to do more with the age of the celestial body and its temperature than it’s distance away.

Nye also mentions Fred Hoyle who coined the term big bang, as he reasoned that since everything was apparently moving apart, then at some point it was all together and exploded out from there. But, as Stephen Hawking recently admitted, there is no real singularity in black holes, but in fact they do excrete radiation with no actual ‘event horizon’, as he had once thought. The big bang concept has not been proven, but main-stream science would have us believe that it has.  Galaxies may not be receding from Earth at all, but instead the universe may be teaming with life and birth and death of celestial objects happening due to electromagnetic interactions between themselves and other bodies. The stars might be a lot closer than we imagine. For further research, click through to the Electric Universe website. I also recommend the work of biologist Rupert Sheldrake for more on the modern science delusion.

At this point in The Young Turks’ critique, the co-host takes a pot-shot at Ham.  What is it with making fun of people whose views are different from our own?

In summation, Nye has not convinced me that the Biblical word of God is false. Neither has he convinced me that evolution of species nor the big bang is true.  I agree with Ham that technological breakthroughs in the ‘modern’ age have nothing to do with theories of historical science. And, theory of evolution should not be taught as fact in the classroom.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s