Wednesday, February 05, 2014

Bill Nye versus Ken Ham: Simplified Thinking All Around

Note: I know good people on all sides of the evolution debate.  Some base their opinions on logic and a scientific model and others on their faith.  Some using the the logic-scientific model accept a form of creationism while others who rely on a form of faith accept evolution.  Of course, the vice versa is also true.  This post is not meant to take sides on the debate but merely point out the flaws of the debate.
On Tuesday, Bill Nye "the Science Guy" debated Ken Ham, head of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.  Nye dominated with logic and scientific examples while Ham relied primarily on the Bible instead of more scientific explanations.

It was not a representative debate for anyone.  First, "creationism" and "evolution" were not defined.  Old Earth Creationists, Progressive Creationists, and Theistic Evolutionists were ignored by Young Earth Ham.  Meanwhile, Nye never went into the internal divides of evolutionary theory.  For example, if you consider yourself a "Darwinist" you are outside the scientific mainstream.  Darwin's gradual evolution has been replaced by most scientists in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

The debate in the end was by two people deeply convicted in their own views which they presented as the only view.  Mr. Ham dismissed every sort of God-related theory but his own and Mr. Nye completely ignored any theory of evolution that involved God and kept his argument vague enough to not disown Darwin.

For more points of view check out this Catholic and Old Earth Creationism rebuttals to the debate itself.  For more information on other forms of creationism or God driven evolution check out these sites for Old Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, and Theistic Evolution (God made life through evolution).

No comments: