It was billed, at least by some, as “Ham on Nye.” But the debate that took place Tuesday night between Ken Ham, curator of the Creation Museum, and Bill Nye, the popular “Science Guy” from public television, couldn’t have been about bigger or more important issues.
The topic of the evening was: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” From there, the two men waged intellectual battle over the entire question of origins and all that it entails, from evolution to the Big Bang to the clash of worldviews between biblical authority and a devotion to naturalism (the idea that the natural world is all that exists, and therefore everything must have a purely natural explanation).
Ham scored early and often in the debate by exposing some of the ruses of evolutionary scientists, for instance, the claim that religion and science are polar opposites and cannot be reconciled. By playing short video clips from biblical creationists like Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI, Ham very effectively eviscerated this bogus claim.
He pointed out that a big part of the problem is the lack of scientific and academic freedom when it comes to creationism. This is a powerful argument that can be buttressed by watching Ben Stein’s brilliant, feature-length documentary “Expelled,” a searing indictment of the intolerance and intellectual dishonesty of those in the naturalism camp.
They don’t want the issues surrounding origins to even be discussed, much less debated, as several high-profile evolutionary scientists made clear by publicly speaking out against the Ham-Nye event when it was announced. A statement posted on the website of Richard Dawkins, one of the leading New Atheists, read simply: “Scientists should not debate creationists. Period.”
Another ruse Ham exposed was how evolutionary scientists use the very word “science” whether they’re talking about observational science (what can be observed, tested, falsified) or historical science (what occurred in the ancient or distant past and cannot be seen or tested).So when biblical creationists reject evolutionary views or interpretations of historical science, the evolutionists always accuse them of rejecting all of science, including modern technological advances like jet airplanes and computers (observational science). Yet, as Ham noted in one exchange with Nye, “molecules-to-man evolutionary belief has nothing to do with developing technology.”
Indeed, Ham related that these technological breakthroughs like jets and computers – as well as science itself – are “borrowed” from the Christian world where they emerged. He pointed out that so many of the pioneers of science and founders of whole branches of science – men like Newton, Faraday, Boyle, Pascal, Pasteur – were Bible-believing creationists.
Sir Isaac Newton, for one, wrote far more on Scripture and theology than he ever did on science, and he is widely regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived. He affirmed:”I have a foundational belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired.”
These pioneers and founders of science believed that because God is revealed in Scripture as omniscient in regard to knowledge and loving in regard to His created beings and the world in which He placed them, and is by His very nature a Lawgiver, the universe would be both orderly and structured upon fixed laws that could be studied and understood for the glory of God and benefit of mankind. And that’s precisely what they found – as opposed to the unstructured, utterly chaotic world you would expect to find if it were all the product of an unguided explosion and other random occurrences based upon pure chance. This is why Johannes Kepler defined science as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
When Ham asked Nye where these laws come from – how the laws of logic and laws of nature can proceed from matter – Nye tellingly replied, “I don’t know.”
Ham delineated numerous other ways the world in which we live corroborates the biblical model used by creationists rather than the evolutionary one used by naturalists. He noted that only about a century ago, it was being postulated that based upon Darwin’s ideas there were as many as five separate races of human beings, with Caucasians being the superior one (whereas the Bible clearly teaches only one race since we are all descended from Adam and Eve).
Nye tried to distance such thinking about multiple superior and inferior races from Darwin by scoffing that this absurd belief was held only by a select group of white European males who wanted to see themselves as better than “lower races.” Unfortunately for Nye, though, all we have to do is look at the subtitle of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” to see just how wrong he is on this point. The subtitle is: “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Sorry, Bill.
Darwin acknowledged early on that, in order for his theory to be proven true, archaeologists and scientists would have to find an abundance of intermediate or transitionary forms throughout the world showing one species evolving into another all the way up the evolutionary chain. The lack of these forms is the so-called “missing link,” although it might be better described as a “worldwide absence of missing links.” They simply don’t exist, and the relatively few “big discoveries” have eventually been reclassified or exposed as hoaxes.
What we find instead, Ham related, are variations within given species – once again confirming the biblical account (in this case, that God created every animal form “after its own kind,” and they cannot cross over).This is why we don’t see evolution taking place today.
It’s no wonder that later in his life Darwin dismissed his theories about molecules-to-man evolution as “the unformed ideas of my youth.”
By the end of Tuesday night’s debate, it was clear why evolutionary scientists avoid such encounters at all costs and why they rage so virulently against their fellow atheists on those rare occasions, like this one, when they agree to to take part in such a free and open exchange of ideas.
These evolutionary scientists know how dangerous that is to their anti-religious crusade and to the philosophical presuppositions they hold so dear.