Last night's
debate between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Creationist, Ken Ham
was slated by some to be the equivalent of a "Scopes 2". I
rescheduled my day so I would be free to give it my full attention. Having the
liberty of watching via the internet rather than being there, I was also free
to keep up with the chatter on Twitter as the debate progressed.
My early
impressions began days previous to the event as I follow Ken Ham's Answers
In Genesis website on my Facebook Feed. It seemed obvious that this event,
as much as anything, has been a huge publicity tool for Ken Ham's Creation
Museum; the site where the debate was held. Ham encouraged watchers to visit
the museum several times over the span of the debate and referenced items in
the museum or staff scientists of the museum repeatedly. This has to have been
a shot in the museum's arm. I also noticed early on that the major media outlets
acknowledged the upcoming event but, to my knowledge, never acknowledged Ken
Ham. I saw interviews of Nye, but none of Ham. It was as if they regarded him
as nobody, an unknown. That is certainly not the case. If Ham seemed to have
over published the event on his internet outlets, it is in no small way
reconciled by the fact that he was under published by the mainstream new
sources.
Introductions
were made by an excellent moderator for the event. It appeared to me the men
were academically equal. Though their courses of study as well as life
experiences are different, neither one outclassed the other. Nye is better
known in public media but certainly not better known than Ham in the world of
Christianity. I doubt many are better known than Ham as a spokesman for
Creation Science.
I heard nothing
surprising from either side in the debate. Ham won the coin toss and gave his
opening statement and his presentation first. I found it interesting that he
used video clips of creation scientists in his presentation. No small portion
of his thirty minutes was taken up, not by his own voice but theirs. It was
gratifying to see and hear him present a clear case for the gospel in his
presentation.
Nye sounded exactly
like I would have expected. He is not considered to be a scientist even though
he calls himself a science guy. Many evolutionary scientists have expressed
that Nye was the right guy for this debate because, in their minds, this was
not a debate about science but an entertainment event. I see that as their way
to excuse the whole event if Nye had made too big a mess of it. Nye did not. He
did exactly what he is capable if doing; rote recitation of the evolutionary
platform.
·
He
demonstrated no capability for critical thinking
·
He
betrayed his gross ignorance of even the most basic Christian concepts
·
He
offered no understanding of the objections to evolutionary theory
Nye did what
every ape of evolutionary theory always does; he hurriedly admitted evolution
is a theory but behaved throughout his presentation as if it is fact. The jab
he repeatedly poked was that this was "Ken Ham's Creation Theory" and
implied he had few followers, even among Christians.
Besides the very
clear presentation of the gospel (and a number of subsequent references to it)
my favorite line in the debate seemed very impromptu. The question to Nye was, "Where
did the matter that resulted in the Big Bang come from?" Nye's answer was
"I don't know" to which Ham replied, "There is a
book..."
There is a book
that answers the most fundamental of our questions and, when embraced,
liberates us to real discovery of those secrets God has hidden for our pleasure
to search out.
Marvin McKenzie
In the field
