This past Tuesday night I watched the “debate” between Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, and Bill Nye, television personality and comedian. I placed “debate” in parentheses because the event was not really a debate but a co-presentation of views. Bill Nye argued against the world being created by God and against the Bible and Ken Ham defended creation science as a legitimate way to understand the world. This article is just my brief assessment of that presentation.

First, while I think Ken Ham presented a cogent case for creation science, especially in his main presentation, I think he could have done more and been more aggressive in the shorter answers. But maybe that is not his style, I don’t know. Nevertheless, there were openings that Nye left that Ham did not fully exploit.

Second, from the start, Bill Nye used emotive and pejorative language to stealthily attack Mr. Ham and creation science. For instance, he constantly described creation science as “Mr. Ham’s view” but his own view as “mainstream science.” He would stretch out his hands toward the outside of the building, and talk about the outside world of mainstream science, as if the creation museum and creation science were divorced from both science and reality. Even when he presented a slide stating the proposition under debate, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” his slide called it “Ken Ham’s creation model.” The implication is that there are many creation models and that they are all different because they are not science. Real science, on the other hand, according to Nye, is unified in adoption of evolution because there is no disagreement about it.

Read the rest here...

In the debate between creation science and evolution, the real problem is not that creationists reject science, it is that evolutionists reject the evidence of the Bible.  They not only reject the Bible, but they reject any possibility of the supernatural whatsoever.  Though they aver that they are objective, in actuality anything that conflicts with their materialistic world view is rejected or shrugged off.

 For instance, Ken Ham introduced a piece of evidence for Bill Nye that he did not really touch.  He made one attempt, but then spoke of it no more.  Ham spoke of a piece of wood that was discovered entombed in a basalt flow 70 feet down.  Samples of the rock and wood were sent to a lab to be dated.  The rock was dated to 45 million years old but the wood was dated to 45,000 years old.  Two widely divergent dates in the same layer.

 Nye tried to suggest that the 45 million old rock slid on top of the wood.  But Ham pointed out that the wood was found encased in the rock, not under it.  Nye never answered this again.  Never attempted to answer it.  He just shrugged.  These examples could be multiplied many times.

 In attempting to defend Big Science dating methods, Nye unwittingly undercut himself by admitting that their predictions about the age of asteroids were incorrect.  They initially predicted that there would be a wider spread between the age of the asteroids, but it was discovered that the ages were actually quite close together, which Nye described as a “mystery.”  These dates are not a problem for creation scientists, but they are for evolutionists.

Read the rest here...