On February 4, 2014 the debate of our times took place in Petersburg, Kentucky. A modern version of the Scopes Trial, if you will took, place between Bill Nye, an American student of science and educator and television personality and Ken Ham, an Australian student of science and founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. It was cordial with both sides addressing each other with respect and allowed each side to completely have their own time. The debate was of course between evolution and creation and focused on the topic of "can creationism be considered viable science?". That calls to mind the poll that was taken here a few months ago and that basically describes what the actual underlying topic was about. Can God be proven? Here are the results:
- 50% said Yes. But faith is also needed with science. This is the correct answer. Faith and science can go hand in hand. They were never meant to be opposite of each other. But the problem is in today's world as Ken Ham stated in the debate the world has drawn a wedge between them and makes it look like they can not coexist (paraphrased). Science was created by God, i.e., He set laws in motion. Gravity, speed of light, elements, and life forms were all from Him. Our faith tells us more though. Science we use to prove things. Faith we use beyond what we can prove.
- 12% said Faith is all you need to prove God. This being a Christian site and many of the followers are Christian makes it simple to understand many would pick this option. But this is a biased opinion and in not viable to "prove" God. Faith is all you need to see God but not to prove the physical existence of Him, especially since He is spirit.
- 6% said Yes. He left scientific evidence for us. If this was the case then all would believe. Yes, there is a lot of evidence that points to a Creator (more later for that point) but some things it takes the spirit of God to understand.
- 0% said No. Science refutes God. Absolutely not. The only ones who would say this are those who have been blinded by their own humanism thinking they have enough intelligence for the whole world, while not admitting it. Those who would have chosen this option try to make believing in God a matter of rationality. As in if you believe in God then you are not a reasonable person.
- 0% said Doesn't matter. Then why the debate? Why is faith and science always clashing. Why do people get so offended and uptight when discussing these two topics at the same time? If anyone picked this one it's because they do not care about anything. If you do not care about where you came from then you would not care about what you are doing or where you are going.
- 12% said Not sure. Understood. This topic for those who are neither strong in their faith nor rely upon scientific fact will look at both sides and struggle with it.
- 18% said Other. These people are crazy. What would be a 3rd option? They won't be back to read this anyway.
Bill Nye and many others have a hard time with the faith part. This biggest obstacle it seems is finding evidence without the Bible or using any faith. One of his major points that he kept coming back to was how he "as a reasonable" man can see how creation is a viable theory to how we got here. What people like him do not understand is that when they try and use reason they they themselves are using their own personal faith. All they do is replace creationism with humanism. They rely upon man's fallibility to explain an infinite universe. In the debate he brought up how the universe shows signs of being older than the what a literal interpretation of Genesis says. For example: How could light from a planet that is 13 light years away be seen by human eyes if we have only been in existence for 6000 years? Here is where faith comes. But, it will be foolish to those who try to disprove God. When God created Adam, He created him fully developed, not as a child. Adam was a man with a fully developed body, brain, and could take care of himself. If there was a doctor and would have been able to do an operation on him he would have found that Adam would have appeared to be a man of maturity even though he was only 1 day old. The same it was with the universe. God created the universe with all the laws of science in place. The first words were "Let there be LIGHT". And light was everywhere throughout the universe, in place, spread out farther than we will ever know, even perhaps passed the 13.4 billion light years we assume. Was there a big bang? Sure. Out of nothing, in one split second all that we know and beyond came into being already in place and fully developed. This was one of the main points Bill Nye could not answer when questioned. What was it before the big bang. He said, he did not know. There is the most compelling evidence for a Creator. Something had to start the big bang. There had to be something before there was all of this.
The one thing that Bill Nye could not do during the debate was refute the existence of God. And no scientific study nor any scientists will ever be able to do that. At one point in the debate he argues the Bible and its authority calling it an ancient book. Funny how he and his like rely on other old things but not this one. Arguing against God may not have been the topic but rest assuredly it was one of his goals:
This is not to say that Ken Ham is correct on everything. However, since he does not deny the existence of a Creator then his starting place in finding all the right answers has more authenticity. It is when he adds his own personal feelings and ideas that it becomes no better than the secular sceince field.
Science should be embraced. The scientific method can and should be used when all possible. But when there are no answers that science has to offer and an ancient book has aldready been written years before any scientific discovery had been made explains it all then that is where faith comes in.
For more about evolution and a more accurate understanding of creationism, read the following Thoughts:
4 comments:
The debate was a great example of two people that see only what they want to see. Both are correct in certain aspects and so far off in others.
Ken Ham and Bill Nye are two individuals that are so steeped in traditional thought that they won't consider anything outside of their myoptic chain of thought, regardless of the evidence.
Both dishonor their respective position and make it hard to witness.
Could you explain what you have aganist both? I think that would add some neat insight.
Hey Tim,
Here are the list for both:
Ken Ham's strict interpretation of sola scriptura—“nothing but the Bible” is seriously flawed. On the surface, the "nothing but the Bible" position is what we both believe and stand upon firmly. However, regardless of the objections or arguments against ones beliefs, one must have to look at the evidence and reconcile your position in order to be used by God. If creation shows that our interpretation is wrong, we must reconcile our position. Paul said basically the same thing when approaching the scriptures in Acts 17:11. We must recieve any message with an eagerness of the heart, but search the scriptures to see if it is true. Ken Ham refuses to budge off his traditionalist and sometimes erroneous position.
Bill Nye is the same way. He has an agenda and will stick with anything anti-God. He will not look at anything with a possible supernatural origin explanation. Even now when science is looking at evidence in the stars that point to something other than the natural, he a staunch supporter of the traditional and proven erroneous position of Darwin
Evolution.
Example One: The age of the universe.
Ken Ham believes that the universe is only 6000 years old. The results are in and the universe is at least 15 billion years old. As you and I can agree, the Scriptures clearly show that at least the the world from the first day is approximately 6000 years old. There is some dispute whether or not the creation of the universe started on the first day.
On the other side, on this debate, we have Bill Nye who hangs onto traditional thought that the speed of light has remain constant thereby making the universe 15 billion years old. He and other traditionalists totally ignore findings within Quantum Physics that the speed of light has actually been slowing down, thereby showing the universe could be somewhere between 250 million and 15 billion years old. Once again, like Ken Ham, when something challenges your perception in science, real science, you need to investigate fully rather than to dismiss it out of hand.
The same two arguments can be said about the dating of bones. If the decay of C is, in fact, true, it makes humans no older than 6000 years old.
Example Two: Evolution
Ken Ham quickly dismisses certain aspects of evolution which are true without even looking at them. Adaptation has been observed and does not go against any aspect taught in the Scriptures. However, Ken Ham says no because it is not mentioned in the Bible.
Bill Nye eagerly clamps on the claim that the intricacies of life, through evolution, developed naturally through adaptation and other processes, while totally ignoring the fact that for this to occur requires more than 5 times the amount of the 15 billion years the universe has been in existence.
These are just two examples but I could go on.
I do agree with Ken Ham when he says that the origins debate is not about science but about philosophical differences concerning the origins of man and nature, the Biblical and the secular/atheism.
I also agree with Bill Nye when he says that it's about two stories. :-)
I see what you are saying but I would disagree about "evidence" as I explain how the universe may seem like it it billions of years old.
Adam was created but as baby or a grown man? Science would say he had to be a baby if they wanted to actually answer and be consistant. The Bible implies he was man already full grown. Same with the universe and maybe even aspects of the universe such as light and so forth.
But okay Ken Ham and Bill Nye will not compromise any of the positions.
Post a Comment