A Few Take-Aways from the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate
1. Bill Nye is Arrogant
Whether it was his reference to the Creation Museum as "this facility" or his frequent references to Kentucky (especially his fear that the people of Kentucky would hold the nation back in the competition for technological advances if they dared to undermine the preeminent position of evolution in school textbooks) or his arguments based on the "reasonable man," Bill Nye betrayed his smug attitude toward his host state, host location and debating opponent.
Apparently, in my opinion, Bill Nye thought his audience was stupid. Again and again, he theorized that if a universal flood was true, then why don't we have a fossilized creature struggling upwards? Supposedly, his mind was so stuck in the deluge of water from his obsession with Noah that he forgot (or hoped that his audience would forget, more likely) that fossils aren't made in water but are formed in mud, soil, etc. and often are found in rock layers. If you or I are hit by a deluge of rocks or soil, our final position most certainly would not be upright. Also, precious few creatures on the Earth can "swim" up through soil in good conditions, let alone in a catastrophic one. If a sudden mudslide, rock slide or what have you, had overtaken a creature from the side, it would be swallowed up in it, quickly killed and entombed. Nearly everyone knows that any creature that is drowned in water is eaten up or destroyed by natural processes, not fossilized on the ocean floor.
Another way that he seemed to betray an attitude that his audience was ignorant was in his frequent remarks about how evolutionary scientists are needed lest the U.S. fall behind the world in technological advances. He ignored Ken Ham's thorough unmasking of this lie with scientist after scientist who were both accomplished in their fields and creationists. Technological advances are happening by scientists regardless of their position on origins.
One last way that Nye betrayed his pride was in his characterization of religious people. He spoke of the benefits of religious communities getting people together, etc. One got the idea that he thought religion was no more beneficial than a YMCA or similar club membership.
2. This marked the first time that many, evolutionists and creationists, got a chance to hear an intelligent, coherent presentation favoring creationism and that in itself was a win for creationists.
This point was made all the more clear when leading evolutionists were recorded by major media as being aghast that Nye would debate a creationist. This just legitimizes them, they argued. It gives them a forum that they don't deserve. Apparently, they were very fearful of creationists getting a fair hearing and on that alone, we won big.
3. The world sees theistic evolutionist Christians as no threat even as this world's system's proponents are furiously mobilized against biblical creationists.
Bill Nye spoke very favorably about the many Christians who disagree with Ham over evolution. The reason he, and others like him, could do this is because theistic evolutionists don't take the Bible literally. And I think he, and those like him, reason that since they don't take the Bible literally, theistic evolutionists either are caving or will cave on issues like homosexuality, marijuana, abortion, etc. So, to borrow an Australian phrase, "No worries."
(Note: this may have been a device to score debating points. I don't think he has respect for religious people but finds things like a universal flood, miracles, the idea of God, etc., to be fairy tales. He likes Christians, however, who roll their eyes as he does at things like the Flood, Jonah in the belly of the whale/great fish, the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus' miracles, etc.).
We have a choice in our Christianity. Stand true on God's Word even as the world is engaged in a vicious assault on the authority of the Bible and even the existence of God. Either that, or cave in on evolution, undermining the Bible, and begin a slippery slope that will eventually make you a Christian version of the world. I think that the Apostle John gives very good instruction on this point when he warned, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15.
Please note: I make no claims to be an expert on the subject addressed here. This is just an opinion piece. For those who wish to dive deep into the intellectual, philosophical, theological and moral implications and details of this debate, I would direct you to:
Answers in Genesis
The Institute for Creation Research
Creation Ministries International
By the way, there is an excellent book on four views concerning the historical Adam that is brand new (published Dec. 2013)
Four Views on the Historical Adam
‘Most evangelical colleges teach evolution’
By MARVIN OLASKYPosted Feb. 4, 2014, 03:09 p.m.
-- Karl Giberson
Bill Nye’s Reasonable Man—The Central Worldview Clash of the Ham-Nye Debate
WEDNESDAY • February 5, 2014
by Albert Mohler