Well, that could have been worse. Last night at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, young earth creationist (YEC) ringleader Ken Ham took on children’s TV personality and playfully bow-tied atheist Bill Nye in a debate to – once and for all – settle the matter of whether or not YEC is a valid model for explaining origins. Suffice it to say, the matter was not settled. And, for reasons I will explain, the only “knockout blows” landed by the combatants were to themselves, rendering the entire event fairly ineffectual. Here’s why…
First, I’m going on the premise that both Ham and Nye wanted to change some minds – pull people across (or off of) the fence toward their respective positions. I don’t believe either man accomplished that. (And why is it always MEN that engage in these debates? I strongly suspect it is because women are reasonable enough to know how silly they are – how they typically amount to little more than schoolyard swagger. In other words, mano-a-mano debates seem to be fueled more by testosterone than logic.) So why did they fail to change anyone’s minds? Because both combatants inadvertently played straight into the stereotypes that keep their positions from being seriously considered.
First, Mr. Ham. (I don’t think he’s a doctor, so it isn’t “Dr. Ham.” It’d be fun if he was a sergeant… “Sgt. Ham” has a nice ring to it. But I think we’re stuck with Mr. Ham.) Mr. Ham appealed to the Bible. Again. And again. And again. How do we know the earth is young? The Bible! How do we know evolution can’t be true? The Bible! “I’ve got a book for that, Mr. Nye!” This is exactly what atheists and skeptics hate about Christians – arguments that don’t really have any argument behind them. We simply appeal to the Bible. Which Ken Ham did over, and over, and over. And anyone who tuned in to see if this Bible museum fellow had anything surprisingly insightful to say, tuned out as soon as a 3500 year-old document was introduced as the “final word” in cosmology. “Just as we expected. No need to listen any further.” Self-inflicted wound.
So what about Mr. Nye? My assumption was, even more so than with Ken Ham (who may have been playing to his base), Bill Nye would try to reach out to conservative Christians to show them they don’t need to “fear” science – that science itself isn’t the enemy. And this appeared to be his goal, except that he, too, walked right into stereotype. “This book (referring to the Bible) has been translated over and over for 35 centuries… translated in American English.”
I’m not sure why the “American English” data point is relevant in the reliability of the Bible – as if British English or Australian English would have produced a more trustworthy document. But Nye made this point at least 3 or 4 different times as a way of saying, “You have too much confidence in this really old book. It shouldn’t be trusted.”
Well… telling conservative Christians they shouldn’t trust the Bible is a little like showing up at Bible study in an “I’m with Satan” t-shirt. “Hello, my name is Bill Nye and I am your mortal enemy” might as well have been his opening line. Nye walked right into the stereotype of “scientist-as-enemy-of-Christianity,” and nothing else he said really mattered after that point.
And thus, the evening was a wasted opportunity for both men. Both walked into stereotypes that greatly reduced the appeal of any good argument they might have otherwise made.
If you ask me, the most beneficial debate would have begun with the question, “Mr. Ham – why do you maintain that the only true reading of Genesis 1 is a reading that even many conservative Bible scholars find simplistic and overly modern?” That would have made for an interesting debate. But as participants in that debate Bill Nye is woefully unqualified, and Ken Ham is, as far as we can tell, unwilling.
And that’s a shame.
Very good post, Phil.
Hi Phil, hope all is well.
I am curious about your question in the last paragraph where you say “… Many conservative Bible scholars find simplistic and overly modern”. I don’t claim in any way to be a Bible scholar, but I do believe in a literal interpretation of God’s explanation of how He created all things in the first third of Genesis. Unless it states otherwise itself, I believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Where do conservative scholars see the young earth reading of Genesis as being simplistic and modern?
Thanks for your input!
Ron
Hi Ron! Listen to episode 9 of our podcast, followed up with episode 16. We dive into this issue very deeply!
Hi Phil,
You are funny and insightful as usual. However, I think what you wished the debate to be (maybe to show that modern science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive) and what the debaters wanted it to be were two different things. I think Ham and Nye wanted to present their two worldviews and show that they are incompatible. Further I think that they were trying to persuade people to their worldview which is why Ham repeatedly showed that his authority is based on the Bible while Nye appealed to an authority based on reason or reasonableness (therefore, no Noah’s ark) and on the widely accepted philosophies of naturalism and uniformitarianism.
You could tell the difference in the clash of worldviews because they couldn’t even agree on definitions. It is hard to show that “science” (however you define that) and “faith” (however you define that) are compatible or contradictory unless you can agree on a meaning. I want to point out that both parties appealed to an authority to explain the issue of origins and both parties have presuppositions that lead them to trust that authority.
As to my own view, I wish both sides would acknowledge: that a plain reading of Genesis 1-3 presents a young earth view of creation. What I mean is by using common sense while reading the narrative and good interpretive skills (taking in language and genre) the meaning is clear. I daresay, these chapters would have been understood by the original readers as creation out of nothing in a relatively short time (6 days). However, Christians, atheists, and agnostics will sometimes say, “looking at Gen 1-3, it could mean an old earth creation, evolution, Big Bang, etc.” Even if you disagree with that view of creation, it seems to me to be wildly creative (or something else) to try to make Gen 1-3 fit that framework.
I did not grow up with a young earth view. In fact, nothing in my background or church experience really made me question evolution or an old earth view. It wasn’t until years after I had become a Christian that as I read the Bible in places like Gen 1-2, Exo. 20:11, Rom. 5:12, Matt 19:4-6 that I became convinced of a relatively recent creation.
It’s not a position I wanted to adopt because of ridicule for young-earthers but I have to go where the Bible leads. Anyways, I know the issue is more complicated than that for most Christians but I wanted to share the verses so that others can think through the issue. God bless you, Phil.
Hi Barry! Thanks for writing. Again, check out Listen to episode 9 of our podcast, followed up with episode 16 for a much deeper discussion of this issue.
Hmmm. There are some very capable women involved in the debate arena, and I’m sad that it “amounts to schoolyard swagger” from your perspective. These dialogues are good to open up, in my opinion. Effectiveness may not be measurable, but perhaps because we have no idea how it was really received/perceived from the perspective of those watching. I’m certain seeds are sown, and some will grow. At the very least, there will be continued dialogue long after the debate analysis has ended.
I can’t argue with some of your points up there, honestly. I am just aware there are more debates taking place on a regular basis than this one. Defense of the faith is still going on in that realm, of course. It is a worthy opportunity for good discussion, and some are better than others.
Really? Guess I just haven’t bumped into them on YouTube. Get out there and use your reasonableness, women of debate!!
Mary Jo Sharp, for one.
I agree with most of the points you made but I would like to add what I thought Ham did well and that was to point out the difference between observational science and historical science. I doubt if the majority of people have even thought of this. I hope that it will at least make some people think about the fact that just because you might hold to the six day, 6,000 year old earth view, it doesn’t make you an outcast (or shouldn’t) and you can still contribute to the scientific community. I think he humanized creationists in a way that most people would find interesting.
Overall, I do not think this debate changed anyone’s mind but props to Ham for bringing the issue front and center and hopefully bringing more opportunities for public and private dialogue.
Best,
– Hunter
if you believe the bible, you’re off base on this. Ken Ham did exactly what he should have done. the bible is not just another document, like The Iliad or something. It IS God’s power to save. so then if you believe it IS God’s power (your own salvation included), why would you then digress and leave it out? Isaiah 55:11 His Word will not return to Him void. simple, really. I applaud Mr. Ham, he may not be a “Dr” but He quoted “The Physician”
Agreed, the Bible isn’t just another old document. But appealing to it isn’t effective when debating someone who DOES believe it’s just another old document. It’s like going to a city council meeting and having someone pull out the Koran to settle an argument. Appealing to a higher authority only works if all the participants have agreed to submit to that authority, which is why appeals to the Bible in a pluralistic society typically don’t work well. (Appealing to the Bible in a church meeting, of course, is another matter entirely.)
I have to disagree with your opinion that “Appealing to a higher authority only works if all the participants have agreed to submit to that authority, which is why appeals to the Bible in a pluralistic society typically don’t work well. (Appealing to the Bible in a church meeting, of course, is another matter entirely.)” This takes all the power away from God. In that regards, as Christians we may as well shut our mouths and never speak until we enter a church or our homes. That’s saying that God can’t do anything. That is a really weak view of God, His Ultimate Authority, and His Word.
Fantastic assessment of the debate! Frankly, I think Kem Ham looked bored up there. I am assuming he has heard all of the arguments raised by Nye and was more interested in bringing up foundational issues.
I completely agree that Nye could have garnered a new fan club by warming to evolution-accepting Christians. Quite a blown opportunity!
Agree! I think the saddest part about it all is Mr. Ham declaring that natural disasters are God’s wrath on the earth. How sad for that to be the image of God to have left Bill Nye with.
What was the general consensus of Earth’s age before Bishop Usher’s calculations? Surely, he wasn’t the first person to ponder it.
I believe the general consensus was thousands of years old – certainly not millions. (There was nothing to suggest those kind of numbers.) Augustine believed God created everything all at once. Boom. He figured the six days of Gen 1 were probably symbolic, not because of Darwin or evolution of course (since he predates Darwin by 1500 years), but simply because of the style of language used in Gen 1. It wasn’t until Darwin and “deep time” that people started digging in on various sides. Interestingly, R.A. Torry, the editor of “The Fundamentals” (the series of pamphlets that launched American fundamentalism), was an old-earth guy. (I believe he was a gap theory creationist, which was common among American Protestants at the turn of the 20th century.) Young earth creationism has an interesting history – the type Ken Ham promotes finds its roots specifically in Seventh Day Adventist writings of the early 1900s. (Mark Knoll’s book “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” has a great chapter on the history of creation science.)
Phil, I would agree with you that Nye’s arguments were overall more scientific than Ham’s, mainly due to the latter’s repeated appeal to biblical authority. However, your analysis here seems to be a somewhat over-negative view of this particular debate. It didn’t seem that convincing people to change their minds was necessarily either one of the debaters’ top goals. Bill Nye did not appear to be trying to attack Christianity or even general creationism, but rather the construction and propagation of allegedly nonscientific creationist models (such as that of Answers in Genesis), because he believes that it is a threat to scientific study that could jeopardize the USA’s future as a competitive innovative power. Ken Ham did not appear to be attempting to mainly change people’s minds himself, but to “plant a seed”, as we churchy people say, to give God an opportunity to change their minds, attempting to do this by promoting and defending a literal interpretation of Genesis (and a belief in the Bible) as a reasonable perspective.
I listened to most of this debate, and though it was boring at parts, I was considerably impressed. Both Bill Nye and Ken Ham were quite respectful of the other in general, which seems to be something you don’t always see in these kinds of events.
Thanks, Peter! I think your assessment of their INTENTS is spot on. But I think Nye’s intent to promote science education was undermined by his attacks on the reliability of the Bible (assuming he was trying to reach the conservative Christians who have been causing a ruckus over science education). And if Ham was really wanting to accomplish the stated purpose of the debate – to show that young earth creationism is a viable model or origins – then appeals to the authority of the Bible don’t help that cause and actually work against it in the eyes of skeptics.
Good post and just right. The YEC position is like a large edifice teetering on the toothpick-thin contention that Genesis has the primary function in Scripture of dating the cosmos via literal descriptions. Mr. Ham cannot grant even the glimmer of a possibility of another approach (as Nye gave him the chance to do by mentioning Francis Collins and other serious Christians who do not share the Creation Museum’s ludicrous claims) because when your edifice rests on a toothpick, you cannot afford to chip away even a little. Take away that toothpick as the only way to read the Bible and all the efforts to disprove science and use the Flood as the trump card against every evidence for an ancient universe gets revealed for the forced contrivance they are, and then it’s a whole new ball game that, as you note, Mr. Ham will not play. I have gone over goodly portions of the Answers in Genesis website and in addition to finding blatant misrepresentations and such bad math that even I could disprove it after 5 minutes on my calculator, again and again everything had a solid line connecting this and that claim to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Take that away or even just bracket it, and most of AiG’s pursuits seem as unnecessary as they are contrived.
youtube.comFirst off, I think you are right that both fell into stereotypical traps with their arguments.
Second, here’s a link to a creation debate between Dr. Kent Hovind and a female Biology PhD (not the only woman I’ve seen him debate) … Just for reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkp6WF8vHq8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Third, I did really appreciate that Ken Ham made plain attempts to present the basics of the gospel message to all who were watching. Even though many athiests and others don’t accept the authority of scripture, the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword and capable of penetrating even the hardest hearts. The farmer can only place the seed in the ground, but he can’t force the dirt to accept it and make it grow. I believe Mr. Ham planted some seeds last night, even though he spread many on the weeds and unfertile soil.
I agree that neither man presented a compelling reason to persuade anyone from their starting position. But I do think it is good for many people to see constructive discussion between opposing veiws especially in this time of modern social media and the vehement disrepect and arguing that clogs so much of the television and internet. That’s one of the things I most enjoy about the Phil Vischer podcast… Intelligent respectful and thought provoking discussions that encourage views from different angles… All sprinkled with random bits of humor, laughter, and fun! You can’t find that very many places.
It is always faintly surprising when someone quotes from the bible (or other “special book”) and evidently expects me to just accept accept
a) the book in general
b) their particular interpretation of
c) one passage taken out of context and ignoring contradictory passages
With no reason or evidence, why should I believe it?
I am reminded of a radio programme I heard some years ago, involving a panel of religious dignitaries discussing the merits of forgiveness. I forget the exact makeup of the panel, other than that it included a female rabbi (not in itself a relevant fact, she just happened to be memorable).
They started as might be expected by referencing their respective special books, but then moved on to a discussion of the results of a scheme involving getting criminals and their victims together to talk.
They all agreed that this was excellent evidence of the positive value of forgiveness.
But when asked how they might attempt to persuade others they went straight back to their books. The rabbi was asked directly how she would attempt to persuade someone who didn’t believe in her god, and the only answer she could produce was to say god doesn’t care if you believe in him or not (in context as in god wants you to do X, and will punish if you don’t, regardless of your beliefs).
It seemed amazing at the time that she had a ready made reason from the previous discussions, but was unable to use it.
Actually I did jump the fence on this one. I now believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and that God just put those ol’ tree rings and dinosaur fossils in the ground to trick us. Very sneaky God!
p.s Sarcasm intended.
focuspress.orgI still haven’t seen it, but preordered a copy fearing it wouldn’t be available for free on YouTube by the company who streamed it. I was wrong.
From what I’m reading, it didn’t go as well as I was hoping. In what limited study I’ve put into the young earth idea, I’ve been impressed with the science. There is one man I know of, Brand Harrub, who does a lot of teaching in this area, and I was looking forward to hearing his thoughts. Though he didn’t critique Mr. Ham’s actual performance, he did want to add his two cents for specific moments he thought he missed. It was interesting stuff, and I recommend checking out his post on that here: http://www.focuspress.org/ZCreationDebateBrad.html
focuspress.orgI still haven’t seen it, but preordered a copy fearing it wouldn’t be available for free on YouTube by the company who streamed it. I was wrong.
From what I’m reading, it didn’t go as well as I was hoping. In what limited study I’ve put into the young earth idea, I’ve been impressed with the science. There is one man I know of, Brand Harrub, who does a lot of teaching in this area, and I was looking forward to hearing his thoughts. Though he didn’t critique Mr. Ham’s actual performance, he did want to add his two cents for specific moments he thought he missed. It was interesting stuff, and I recommend checking out his post on that here: http://www.focuspress.org/ZCreationDebateBrad.html
Per you last question and comment – I have heard Ken Ham answer that question before in different formats. I don’t see or agree he is unwilling. Maybe you need to challenge him to such a debate.
He has responded to that question on the AIG website, but when asked directly to debate a leading evangelical OT scholar who had expertise on the topic, he declined. (And not because of scheduling – as he was already coming to the event. He cancelled his appearance and offered to come another night, when the OT scholar wouldn’t be there.)
The concern is that everyone from NT Wright and Tim Keller to CS Lewis and the Pope to the Evangelical Council for Biblical Innerancy and Billy Graham have come out saying there is more than one way to read Genesis 1 and a young earth conclusion is not demanded by the text. Facing this mountain of scholarship, Ham’s response is that all these people are “deceived.”
That posture is what many in the faith find so concerning. Myself included.
Phil,
I’d be interested to know which OT scholar that was, if it’s not too confidential? It is possible that he had other reasons for not wanting to interact with that scholar that just their position on Genesis 1. I would love to see somebody like John MacArthur or Albert Mohler (both Young Earth Creationists and excellent biblical scholars) debate somebody like John Walton. That would be a very interesting debate!
The Bible is and will always be the most important starting point for anyone who desires a true understanding of God and His revelation to man…Does it really matter how old the earth is? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”—Gen 1:1 is all I need to know about how we got here and who put us here…
I think maybe Ken Ham’s intent was just different. When else do you get the chance to share the gospel with 10 million + (total who have watched it now) people? God’s Word is sharp and powerful and doesn’t return void. On the other hand, no one has ever come to Christ b/c of man’s arguments in a debate. And we are not to be part of “foolish arguments”. God can use His Word no matter how good or bad we think an actual debate/speaker was. The Holy Spirit is the One who has to be at work.
Phil, great points. The debate was better than I expected, but I have to admit I had very low expectations because neither of these men is a philosopher, rhetorician, or debater, which are generally what make for good debates.
Early on I realized that Mr. Ham’s primary point in the selection of the debate question was to show that you can be a young-earth creationist (YEC) and also be a good scientist, which he easily proved (all you have to do is come up with ONE person in this category and you win). However, that is a very poor debate questions because it can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” response. If you want to foster discussion, that is a terrible way to pose any question even in everyday life, let alone a debate (talk with any parent who asks their teenager, “Did you have a good day?” rather than “What did you do today?”).
Watching the debate, I was reminded that Mr. Ham is skilled in how he describes things. He takes somewhat complex ideas and distills them into memorable (and often alliterative) terms—”Molecules to man evolution,” for example. Any time we talk about “evolution,” we should be clear what exactly we are talking about (that term can mean anything from simple change over time to the origin of life through natural selection). Mr. Ham does this well because he can quickly and easily say, “molecules to man evolution,” when he is speaking about evolution as an explanation of origins. Being clear and concise is good skill, and something we should all strive to be better at. I think that would do a lot to advance Truth in the world.
On the other hand, Mr. Ham used some really poor language. One glaring example was the expression, “Secularist have hijacked…” He used this phrase quite a few times. That kind of categorization of the opposition shows one of two things: either you haven’t taken the time to get to know the other side, or you are just playing to your crowd, your team. This is the kind of thing you hear at political party rallies and at sports bars. It’s great for rallying your fan base, and terrible for convincing your skeptics. Which made me wonder if this debate was more about rallying the YEC base then it was about changing anyone’s mind. I can’t answer that question. And I am not trying to judge Mr. Ham’s motives (because I can’t) or cast doubt on his sincerity (He’s my brother in Christ), I am simply saying that’s how it made me feel (the commercial for the Creation Museum before the debate and the frequent references to their website didn’t help).
Regarding Mr. Nye’s performance, I agree that he would have been much more effective in his appeal to “swing voters” if he had not been critical of the Bible in general, (even though he disagrees with it personally), but instead had focused his critique specifically on the YEC interpretation of it.
However, I disagree that both men were equally ineffective. Rhetorically speaking, Mr. Nye made much better use of the air time because he made an appeal, while Mr. Ham never made anything more than assertions of truth. Also, I noticed a few times when things were heating up toward the end, Mr. Nye resisted the kind of sweeping, negative characterization that Mr. Ham sometimes used (granted Mr. Nye was on “hostile territory,” so he probably realized how it would hurt him if he did).
I don’t agree with Mr. Nye’s position, and I do agree with much of what Mr. Ham asserted, but Mr. Nye’s overall posture was more inviting. If I got a chance to have coffee with one of the two men after the debate, I would want to have a cup with Mr. Nye, because I got the impression that we could have a good discussion, even though hold opposing positions. Again, I am not necessarily saying that would be the case, but from the debate, that’s the impression I got.
And that matters.
Yes, we must stand for truth, and even die for it, if it comes to that, but we also need to embody it, because ours is a Savior who didn’t just impart truth, He made it hospitable by coming into a hostile world.
Well said, Stephen!
Sgt. Pvischer, it seems you are offended by Mr. Ham’s YEC position, as well as how he defended it. I believe they both debated the topic well. I just think Bill Nye misrepresented himself. He said that he respects the billions of religious people around the world that don’t hold to a 6 day creation belief. Ha! Here’s what’s offensive to Bill Nye and other atheists: Noah and his crazy ark that would have been impossible for 8 unskilled people to make, the virgin birth, salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the 2nd coming of Christ, the Bible, Satan, heaven, hell…you get the point. And yes, Ken Ham doesn’t do a good enough job of scientifically explaining “his 6 day creation.” Because it would make Christians look less foolish if he would just wise up to the evidence. Then we wouldn’t have to be so embarrassed when we try to convince atheists/agnostics that there’s a person who eternally exists, who could created matter from nothing and desires to have a relationship with His creation. The biggest bummer is that apparently we’re all going to be vegetarians.
“Only fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.'” Psalm 14:1
As I live many miles away I missed the debate, but it seems a shame as there is a large body of data available to discuss the Young Earth Creation possibility – an interesting read to get started on scientific interpretation of the evidence is “Evolutions Achilles Heel’s”. Is a pretty intense read from scientific perspective (especially the radiometric carbon dating chapter) but it’s a good, proper, science discussion on the interpretation of current findings and the history of the debate.
I thought the debate was very interesting. In my opinion Ken Ham did a very good job of explaining why the Bible qualifies as a science text. I was not convinced of Bill Nye’s arguments. I enjoyed that debate and pray that if nothing else someone somewhere decided to receive Christ as their savior and lord. I also see where you’re coming from. But be honest, it must be hard to keep your emotions on check when you’re debating with someone. When someone says negative things about my God, it’s very hard to control even my face! Much less give a well-thought out powerpoint presentation. I turn red and get very indignant. Anyways, ease up there Mr. Viscer… Ken Ham’s your brother and he did a great job.