Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy

 
We have a problem with not knowing. Some say that religion is something people believe because it makes them feel better, basically. It gives them an answer. I would say the same exact thing about the theory of evolution. I recently learned about Ken Ham, a creationist who has an organization called Answers in Genesis. He actually built a life size Noah’s ark in Kentucky, among other things!

One item that quickly popped up for Ken Ham in a Google search was a debate he did with Bill Nye the Science Guy in 2014. Bill Nye the Science Guy videos were shown to me throughout public schooling in the U.S. I was very excited to discover and watch this debate! I also learned a lot. So many of the thoughts and ideas that I had formed on the matter were confirmed with the arguments that Ken Ham presented. The biggest point he articulated over and over again was something I had fumbled to say in many more words. He said that the word science has been hi-jacked to include both observational science and historical science, lumping them together and calling them science.

Historical science isn’t really science, or at least it's important to distinguish. When I think of science, I think of the scientific method with a hypothesis, independent and dependent variables, where we can observe that if you try to grow a plant in the dark, it does not work, thus concluding that it needs sunlight to grow.  We can see it, observe it, isolate the variables, and determine a truth about nature. That is science.

In all of my reflections on the matter, I have seen clearly that it is arrogant to make claims to things that happened long ago while only dealing with very limited information and having no witness accounts. To call such conclusions truth is to go completely against the way our court processes work. I’ve also seen that evolution lacks contribution to the scientific advancements we’ve made in medicine, engineering, technology, etc. I'm not claiming to be a young earth creationist. I'm not entirely concerned about the exact age of the earth, but I am surely a creationist. I also don't see that the young earth creation theory has been concluded impossible. 

What does the theory of evolution actually do for us? In all honesty, it seems to primarily be a theory that contradicts creation and the existence of God. It gives an alternative explanation and serves as an option for people who don’t believe in God. That’s its main purpose, not helping us to improve our living conditions, reduce physical or mental disease, or improve efficiency in any way. It seems to have caused lots of conflict during its 150 years and not much help. If anyone has a good argument that goes against that, I would love to hear it. If we stop viewing the world primarily through the lens of an evolutionist and open up the possibility of intelligent design, will our scientific advancements stop? Will they be affected? How so?

On the other hand, we can look at what the Bible does. Christians are not the only religion that believes that the Bible is the word of a living God and surely not the only religion that believes in the supernatural. The Bible, whether you think it was stretched along the way as Ken Ham claims in relating it to a tall tale, is a historical document and witness account. The theory of evolution was simply formed from the thoughts of Darwin after observing bird beak variations, and reported in two books that are filled with white supremacy and the dehumanization of human beings, who I would argue, alongside Ham, are image bearers of the living God. As Ham said, there is much greater variety in dog breeds than there were in the finch beaks Darwin observed, but we have yet to see one of those dog breeds convert into a separate species.

Many will claim that religion has been the cause of all sorts of horrors, and it is true that it has been a source of conflict. However, I would invite those same people to take a look at the country of Haiti. Millions of children have no access to schooling and kidnappings are currently happening on a daily basis. Check out the clips in my last post where I interviewed Jerry Floreal. He spoke about the school he went to as a child and the surrounding schools in the area. All are Christian schools supported by different churches. He also mentions support from World Vision, a Christian organization. This is the truth in Haiti and I believe other parts of the world as well. So the next time you hear someone talk about the bad that religion has done, don’t forget about these teachers being paid and kids being fed day after day, month after month, and what the motivation is for this service.  

Toward the end of the debate, the moderator read questions from the audience and they had a short amount of time to answer. This section really showed to me a strong difference in the two mindsets of these men. I saw Bill Nye display an insecurity in not knowing, a strong need to know, and excitement as well to research and find out. For example, when asked how matter gained consciousness, he said that no one knows! It’s one of the great mysteries! The way he spoke was intense as if not being able to give a scientific explanation was an urgent problem, one that must continue to be addressed until an answer is present. As Ham spoke, especially during the last part of the debate where they answered questions from the audience, Nye’s face was a bit intense and almost angry or at least stressed.
Ken Ham’s face and stature, on the other hand, was calm and cool. When he spoke of not knowing something, he didn’t seem stressed. He spoke of what he did know, gave biblical explanations to match scientific observations, and calmly admitted when there was not yet an answer on a topic.

At one point, they talked about the observation that the stars are getting further and further apart. Bill Nye excitedly explained to the audience that maybe if we knew the answer as to why that is the case, then it would be helpful in figuring out other things! He then went onto tell them that NASA does a lot of research in this area, paid for by their tax dollars.
And here is where I’ll rest my case. When I see that Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon, is investing his billions in developing a rocket ship experience where people can fly into space like tourists, I see pure heartlessness. Yes, it’s his money and he can do what he wants with it, but how can someone invest in something so unnecessary like that when our planet is full of urgent need still. I suppose it’s no worse than investing in expensive cars, clothing, jewelry, etc. It’s all pretty heartless.

My biggest heart cry is that every child on this island of Hispaniola where I live would have access to free, nurturing education delivered in their mother tongue. I’m sure funding the new schools that would be needed to do that wouldn’t be much for Jeff Bezos. It wouldn’t be much for many other people or for groups of people. If all kids could attend a nurturing school at least up to sixth grade, we know that Haiti would see the change it longs for. And it’s more than just investing money; it’s a project that takes smarts, planning, and dedication. But it’s apparently not as fun and exciting as developing space tourism or sending robots to Mars, so why invest in something like that?

Evolution has been studied for 150 years now. What have we found? What has it done for us? Ham gave an example of a rock and piece of wood found next to each other under the earth’s surface and with radiocarbon dating, one dated 45,000 years old while the other dated 45 million. Nye replied that the wood probably just slid on top of the rock. That was literally his response. This is what we’re calling science? Ham also argued several times that there are dozens of dating methods and most do not support the millions of years theory, which I did not hear Nye reply to throughout the entire debate. 

When do we stop with research for the sake of hopefully finding out something important and instead dedicate time, resources, and brains to proven solutions that just need to be implemented. It’s okay not to know everything. It’s not okay to have the means to help others who live in situations that no human should have to live in but waste your means on sheer pleasure or a desire to know everything. I think we have it backwards.    

 
There are a few other observations about the debate I’d like to make. Nye kept critiquing Ham, saying that his model could not predict anything that would happen in the future. It seemed a bit unreasonable that Nye doubted Ham’s Bible based theory, which does not seem to contradict science other than inconclusive evidence such as the radiocarbon dating example, which again is historical science, when he obviously had never studied the Bible. If he did, he would see that the Bible is far from a simple tall tale. It is so very intricate, diverse, wise, and I have many accounts of how it has been alive in my life, as do many others. It is also full of prophecies that were fulfilled, and to this day, people can share revelations that did let them know something about the future. Don’t let the Trump prophets be your only representation of prophecy! I talked about a video from Transformation Church in this blog post. It is the second video in the post and if you watch it, it shows proof of a small prophecy fulfilled right there.

Another point I’ll make is that Nye shared images of skulls found under the earth that were not human nor monkey on a few occasions. Ham did not address that. To be fair, they had limited time to speak at each opportunity and he must not have found that that was the most important point he wanted to use his time to make. I’m sure his organization has published information on the matter. But I have many thoughts on the matter.  The main point is that it’s not reasonable to draw conclusions with so little information.

Have we dug up the whole world in order to study everything everywhere, or just some spots here and there around the world? Do we really expect to be able to tell an accurate tale of history from archaeology? We have a hard enough time telling an accurate tale of history when it’s full of eye witnesses! Have we been able to observe what happens to bone underground over long periods of time under all sorts of conditions? How do we know that it doesn’t change shape? I’m not saying that I think it does, but I am just saying that we have no idea of all the variables. What explanation of dinosaur bones do we give when we realize that dinosaurs are not present on earth now? We say they went extinct. So why do we not think that perhaps some of these skulls were from creatures that are now extinct, if they are no match to any living creature?

Did the Bible say that God made the earth in a certain way? How do we know that he didn’t form the Grand Canyon? Why do we assume that the earth was a certain way and then formed that way over millions of years? So much of what Bill Nye argued was with the assumption that God could not intervene. Does the Bible say that God created in six days, then wiped a lot out with a flood and it grew back from there, but that all of his creation was limited to those six days? Nye’s whole thought process is very limited by a disbelief in God and then in any attempt he made to consider a creator, he put super limits on God.

The Bible has a consistent message throughout, reiterated hundreds of times. “Fear not”. Now, that doesn’t mean to ignore observations and neglect stewardship of the beautiful earth and its creations. It doesn’t mean that God controls everything as he certainly does not. He is powerful enough to but he did not create robots to control. And we have work to do! So much work to do! But I would rather have a calm and steady disposition like Ken Ham when it comes to where the ultimate control lies over Bill Nye’s stressed out, insecure look any day. Nonetheless, it’s so awesome that these two men came together to do this debate. I respect them both so much for that.

I almost forgot one last point I wanted to make. Throughout the debate, Bill Nye kept turning to the Kentucky audience, feeling like he had to motivate them to become involved in the field of science and warn them that if they didn’t, the U.S. could lose its stance as world power. He said this several times and didn’t use those same words, but did say that the U.S. will fall behind or that it will be harmed economically, etc. This concern reminds me of Richard Spencer’s interview I shared in a post about scientific racism. It’s fear, and this fear makes us see our others as enemies. This fear and attitude does not come from the Bible, but from an atheistic worldview. This doesn't mean that Christians don't adopt it sometimes too, but it does not come from the Bible. 

I would love to know what you think. Please comment below.  Thanks for reading.