Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Apologetic Tuesday: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye-Some Debate Considerations

February 4, Answers in Genesis’ president, Ken Ham, will debate 1990s TV host Bill Nye, “The Science Guy” (Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!). It will take place on the premises of the Creation Museum (which is excellently done [I’ve been there twice before, as my wife is from Cincinnati]). I’ve even read where it will be available to watch live, for free, at debatelive.org. J I want to write a post framing the debate, and then I want to write a review of the debate after it happens.

The topic is going to be, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?” I think, for various reasons, Ken Ham should never have agreed to this topic (or proposed it—I have no idea who proposed the question). First, I think the question is malformed: it either contains a redundancy (e.g., “in today’s modern scientific era”) or defines it in philosophical terms (i.e. modernism). It also can be interpreted to form a dichotomy between creation and science, and if that is the case, it’s unclear what kind of “model” the question is asking for. The most charitable interpretation of the question I can muster is this: “In light of scientific knowledge, is there a creation model that would be consistent and plausible with that knowledge?”

Now, if Ham were a philosopher, or defended what he believes in a different manner, he could very well explain that creation in general is not inconsistent with science, and that it can even be plausible if enough or certain background information were included (such as the likelihood of God’s existence, among other things). Instead, what Ham will do is emphasize the Young Earth Creation model. This is fine, but it will be difficult to defend. Why? Because the question places all of the burden on Ham. Bill Nye doesn’t have to prove a single thing. In fact, Nye doesn’t have to defend any criticisms Ham levels against Nye’s view. He can simply ignore them and poke holes in young earth creationism.

Here’s the downside: if he is successful at poking holes in Ham’s position, it will appear, rhetorically, that Bill Nye’s position is correct. No, this is not logical. But it is what will happen. People will walk away, at the very least, saying evolution was the winner. There is, however, another downside to this: Nye’s position is that Christianity is false, and that evolution at least contributes to this. That is to say, Nye is a proponent of naturalistic evolution. So, if Nye’s view is deemed correct without a single defense from Nye, then Christianity will have been deemed false without a single argument. Something seems wrong here.

The final criticism/framing of the debate I think both old earth creationists and young earth creationists can agree with me on. AiG is, unfortunately, famous for insinuating, if not outright saying, that if a literal, six-day creation six to ten thousand years or so ago is untrue, then Christianity is untrue. This causes people’s faith to hinge on science. Now, I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that hinging your faith on scientific matters is faulty. I don’t believe it’s possible, even in principle, for science to disprove the God of Christianity. Ham may not realize it, but by espousing the above position, he is affirming that such a thing is, in principle, possible. What do we think will happen when we send off our kids to college, to face their freshman biology professor? Will we insist that their faith ought to hinge on how well they can debate her? I think that’s foolish.

Instead, why not say that there are several options in Christianity that could possibly be true (that is, their truth coupled with God’s existence is not a logical contradiction, nor does it plausibly rule out God)? Ham should emphasize, if nothing else, that even if all of his arguments fail, it doesn’t follow Christianity is untrue. He should say, “Even though YEC is correct, if it turns out that we were wrong and God used evolution or created the earth billions of years ago, why can’t he do that?” It would put a strong onus on Bill Nye to defend his naturalistic philosophy, something I suspect he is not prepared to do.


Honestly, I am afraid that if Ham frames the debate according to YEC-or-bust, and fails to establish his case, he will inadvertently cause many to stumble away from the Lord. May it never be.

13 comments:

  1. You should be aware that Ken Ham is LYING about your blog on his facebook page:
    https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
    "Well it's fascinating to read many of the blogs and articles about he upcoming debate between me and Bill Nye. I read one yesterday where the author was basically critiquing what I was going to say at the debate before I even make a presentation. That's interesting because I am still deciding exactly what I will say in the short presentation time of 35 minutes (then rebuttal time and question and answer time). I'm so glad this person knows what I'm going to be saying before I do!!

    Then this same person also states: "AiG is, unfortunately, famous for insinuating, if not outright saying, that if a literal, six-day creation six to ten thousand years or so ago is untrue, then Christianity is untrue." That's simply a gross misrepresentation of what we do say. Salvation is not conditioned on a 'six-day creation six to ten thousand years ago,' but on faith in Christ. What we do say is reinterpreting the clear words of Scripture in Genesis to fit with millions of years undermines biblical authority. Such compromise can affect the coming generations in regard to how to look on Scripture--it can cause doubt leading to unbelief. It's an authority issue."

    AiG DO say more or less what you said (I think they say that if Genesis 1-11 was false then so would be the rest of the Bible) and Ham's response about salvation issues versus authority issues is just a lying smokescreen to depict you (without linking to your blog) as ignorant or stupid. All these nasty people 'lying' about the Lord's servant Ken Ham! Perhaps they aren't lying after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A direct link to the post can be found here. I've also posted a response to Ken Ham (though I am uncertain whether he will read it).

      Delete
    2. Hey man, thanks for dropping by! I appreciate your post there as well. I decided to stay out of it, because I don't think unbelievers will be better served by seeing what they perceive to be a fight. Frankly, if he decides to "prove me wrong" and allow for other interpretations, even though he thinks they're incorrect, I'll be happy. I'm actually a YEC by upbringing, so this isn't even an "us vs. them" thing (whatever that might mean). :)

      Delete
  2. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/07/maligned-by-ken-ham/
    "If there was not one man Adam and one woman Eve, and a literal event of the one man Adam taking the fruit in rebellion and thus bringing sin and death into world, then one may as well throw the rest of the Bible away." You - a Christian writer by the sound of it - made a valid point about things Ken Ham says. Ken Ham CHOSE to misinterpret your words and dismiss your claim. That says a lot about the divisive KEN HAM imho.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ham spends his whole life playing to his gallery of deluded and often rather nasty followers - he is rather like a cult leader. Anybody who opposes Ken Ham is either a 'liar' or 'intolerant' or indulging in 'gross misrepresentations' about the work and beliefs of Answers in Genesis. I suppose he has a scripture which tells him that all this is so... Never mind reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ashley, thanks for commenting! I appreciate you pointing this out to me. It does appear to be his legitimate Facebook page. I'm not sure I think he is lying as much as he just may not understand the logical implications of some of his views. I respect and love him as a brother in Christ (fellow Christian), but I stand by what I have said. In addition to what you have said, back in April 2013, a study guide contained this quote:

      "What are some theological reasons the Earth cannot be millions of years old?
      The idea that the Earth is millions or billions of years old undermines the Bible’s message of sin, death, and salvation. The doctrine of Creation (based in Genesis) explains that one man’s sin led to the death, pain and suffering we experience today, whereas the anti-God doctrine of evolution and its stablemate, a belief in an “old Earth,” proposes the opposite: namely that millions of years of death, disease and struggle preceded (or even led to) man’s existence. If Genesis is merely myth, there is no basis for morality or any Christian doctrine. Since Genesis is true history, the foundation for Christianity is firmly established." (emphasis mine)

      I wish him the best, and I hold no hostility toward him. Thanks again! :)

      Delete
    2. Whoops, silly me! I forgot the attribution: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/04/17/answers-with-ken-ham-answer-key

      Delete
    3. And, from the same page, this: "Biblical authority and infallibility are called into question if God did not create in six Earth-rotation days as Genesis 1 clearly teaches. If the Bible is wrong when it speaks of God creating in six days, why is it not wrong when it speaks of the Virginal Conception or the Resurrection of Christ? The foundations of Christianity are based firmly in the words of Scripture, which state clearly that God created in six actual days."

      Delete
  4. Ham has said AGAIN more or less the same thing that he tried to deny was correct when quoting from your blog (I frankly don't buy the 'he fails to understand the logical implications of his views' or 'he may have misunderstood me' suggestion and from what I have seen of and read by Ham think that Randy is being somewhat naive about him):
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geekgoesrogue/2014/01/hamonnye-pre-debate-coverage-interview-with-ken-ham/
    "In our era, the book of Genesis has become the most-attacked book of the Bible. If you say the Bible can’t be trusted in its first chapters of history, then the questions is: can it really be trusted elsewhere, including what it says about Christ’s salvation message in the gospels? The gospel is founded in Genesis ... Theologians and pastors who pick and choose what they want to believe about the Bible are creating massive doubt about all 66 books of the Bible".
    If Ham says something it is true, but if critics repeat what he said then the critics are indulging in "gross misrepresentation". Says a hypocritical, extremist, Christian with an agenda of demonising people who disagree with him (including fellow Christians).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't see any good coming from this "debate". But, if Ken will take this opportunity to acknowledge that his fellow Christians disagree and are varied on their views of the days of Genesis, that science and Christianity are not in conflict, and that Christ's claims are central, then I'll consider it a great victory! Yet, I am extremely doubtful that's what will happen! Ken, are you listening, brother?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin! Love the podcast, man. :) I am a big fan of WLC. Thanks for dropping by!

      I am right with you. He has supposedly said that he does not endorse this, so I would be all too happy to hear it if he would acknowledge that, if it turns out six day creationism were to be false, one could still be a Christian! I would not walk away from Jesus were it to be proven beyond any doubt that evolution were a fact, yet Ham seems to say that if he were to believe that it (or even old earth) were fact, he would (though I don't think he would!). It's too bad, really.

      Delete
  6. Randy
    You may care also to see this blog (again by a Christian) and the comments underneath it:
    http://www.godofevolution.com/young-earth-creationist-ken-ham-caught-fibbing-once-again/#more-2094
    I have sent both your blog (and these comments underneath it) and now Tyler's blog to Answers in Genesis via the 'contact us about new stories' section of their website. But - because I refute nonsense on their website - they NEVER respond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ashley, thanks for the update. I saw that website, and on an unrelated note (that is, what I am about to say has nothing whatsoever to do with Ken Ham's position), I found them to be a little aggressive for my tastes. I just believe we ought to be charitable to each other as Christians, even if our opponents who say they are Christian are not. I honestly could be very naive concerning Ham--in fact, some people might say that by assuming he didn't understand the logical implications of his view, I was insulting his intelligence! Either way, someone is mad at me. I definitely appreciate your diligence in compiling this information--it definitely vindicates my interpretation. Of course, I would prefer it a thousand times over if he "proved me wrong" by stating within the debate that Christianity can be true even if YEC turns out to be false. :)

      Delete

Please remember to see the comment guidelines if you are unfamiliar with them. God bless and thanks for dropping by!