It was reported that over 3 million people tuned into Tuesday’s Creation vs Evolution Debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Somehow that cannot be scientifically verified since we cannot go back, retest, reproduce, and make sure that every person stayed awake, did not go to the bathroom, or start fiddling on their phone long enough to be considered “not watching.” But through some assumptions made, we can say that over 3 million people watched it.
All sarcasm aside, that was Ken Ham’s opening statement and his continuous stance upon the issue.
Ken Ham’s Strong Points During the Debate
Ken opened up with a definition of terms – the difference between operational science and historical science. Whether Bill Nye will admit that the scientific community adheres to this difference in terms, there is a difference in terms. Ken did a great job of defining these two terms and giving examples of these two terms. However, he should have made these terms clear at the beginning, categorized his arguments using these two terms, but not continued to go back and define these terms as if the audience had never heard them.
Ken did demonstrate clearly and properly that Creationist scientists can work along side of Evolutionist scientists within the realm of observational science. What they do with the data then is view this evidence from the lens of their worldview. For Bill not to admit this is simply ignorance or lying. Any “reasonable” man would be able to admit this.
Ken also did a good job giving the theological implications of not believing a recent Creation account. Many times I hear great debaters such as Frank Turek and Stephen C. Meyer and although they can make all the scientific arguments, when asked a theological question such as the problem of evil, they have no answer, no theological foundation or understanding, and simply do not see the logical implications to their thinking.
Ken Ham’s Weak Points During the Debate
Ken is not a debater and frankly, he did not think on his feet well and give good, hard scientific evidence to refute Bill Nye. He should have been more on the attack, used his counter-arguments well, and given more scientific and mathematical refutations to easy softballs that Bill Nye cast out.
Ken did not properly and concisely define the difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Although he hinted at this, this distinction must be made for the public. There must be a demonstration that the scientific community will not make this distinction in our textbooks.
Ken also should have seen the overarching question of the debate “Is Creation a viable model of origins” and given scientific evidence such as DNA, cosmological, laws of thermodynamics, and laws of conservation of matter and energy that all support the model of creation. He should have also given specific scientific examples of problems with the model of evolution.
Bill Nye’s Strong Points During the Debate
Although I staunchly disagree with Bill Nye (and frankly wish I could have taken him in a debate), I believe that I can take an objective look at his performance during the debate. Bill made strong scientific arguments against the model of creation during the evening. He cited specific examples that go against a 6,000 year old creation. I also admire Bill for showing up at the debate. It was obviously not a crowd that was in his favor and the scientific and atheistic community did not want him to do it, so I give him applause for having the guts to go to the Creation Museum.
I also admire that he admitted that he did not understand the theological implications. Although he made his despise clearly known for the dims of Christianity, he admitted that he did not fully understand the Bible or its implications.
Bill also clearly showed his love for science and his love for discovery. Although we disagree on why we love science and why we love discovery, I mean for what purpose and reason we endeavor to do these things, I enjoyed seeing that love shown to the American public.
Bill Nye’s Weak Points During the Debate
Wow, where do I start? Although Bill gave many scientific arguments against the model for creation, every one of those arguments could be turned around against the model of evolution. Snow ice and 680,000 years of winter/summer seasons in Greenland. This data does not show 680,000 years but that the ice has melted and froze again which can be scientifically shown to be wrong. And any way, 680,000 years is way too short for evolution’s model.
Old trees dated using radioisometric dating – too short for your model, the fossil record – fully, formed species showing 99.9875% marine and plant fossils, problems with deep space and the horizon problem – these are all problems for the model of evolution and not the model of creation. Even the number of species that we see on the earth today – there are way too few for evolution, we should see more for billions of years. And Bill used proportional mathematics to demonstrate something that every Algebra 2 student that is still awake knows to be exponential growth. Ken should have turned these evidences one by one back on him during the counter-argument section.
Bill also cited that the creation model goes against the laws that we see working today. I agree there, but Darwinian Evolution flies in the face of all of these laws. It goes against the laws of thermodynamics (which both men could not clearly define for the audience), the laws of chemistry, the laws of biogenesis, the laws of mathematics, the laws of logic, the laws of matter, the laws of energy. I would have slammed him on each one here.
Bill is not a debater and he could not answer with his philosophy of evolution certain questions that leave him and his beliefs in a bad spot.
These were questions that were not answered by both men and I plan on writing this next week on these questions so that you may be fully equipped in any conversation:
Questions for Ken Ham that he could not answer:
- Can your model predict any scientific discoveries for the future?
- Can you show me one fossil that is mixed with smaller organisms?
- What would it take to change your mind?
Questions for Bill Nye that he could not answer:
- Can you show me one instance of new information being added in a mutation?
- Can you explain why there are natural laws that are dependable if God does not exist?
- Why are you excited about new discoveries if there is no life after death?