I watched the creation/evolution debate between Ken Hamm and
Bill Nye, the Science Guy. While I have
many thoughts about the debate, I only have time to share a couple (and you
probably only have time and interest to read a couple of my thoughts).
First, I will jump to the end of the debate because I think
it is the most crucial issue addressed. The
final question asked what they base their views on. Ken Hamm answered first and firmly said he bases his belief in creationism on the
Bible. He believes science supports the
biblical claims that God created the world in six literal days. Bill Nye said he bases his views solely on
science.
After listening to these two men for about two hours, I
believe Bill Nye incorrectly answered the question (I’m not saying he intentionally
lied. He probably does not understand his real starting point. Yes, I admit that I’m being presumptuous by
claiming I know his true starting point and he does not.). Bill Nye’s views are not really based on
science. There are no scientifically
recorded observations of what happened on earth thousands, millions, or
billions of years ago (if in fact the earth existed that long). So, Nye cannot really base his belief in the
origins of the universe on science.
Similarly, scientific observations of this current world are subject to interpretation. Nye and Hamm, as well as other scientists
both evolutionists and creationists, have the same scientific “facts” about
this earth, but they come to different conclusions, evolution or creation,
because they interpret the facts differently.
So, how do we explain the difference in their
interpretation? It is their starting
point. Hamm admits he starts with the
Bible. When he views scientific evidence,
he interprets it in light of biblical teaching that God created the world in
six days. On the other hand, Bill Nye
begins with the belief that God does not exist and, therefore, everything must
be explained solely by the natural world, without any possibility of a
supernatural intervention. Since God is
out of Nye’s picture, he has to interpret the scientific “facts” differently
than Hamm.
Likewise, I think that people who already believe in
creationism think Hamm won the debate, while people who already believe in
evolution believe Nye won the debate. A
person’s starting point, already believing in creationism or evolution, led
them to their belief of who won the debate.
The key point is that a person’s starting point will
determine their conclusion. Hamm starts
with a belief in God, so he concludes that God created the earth. Nye starts with a belief that God does not
exist, so he concludes that the earth is a result of evolution. Very few people actually let the “scientific
evidence” lead them to believe in God or to reject a belief in God.
Second, the “scientific evidence” is, in reality, insufficient
to cause anyone to “know” that God exists, that creationism occurred, or that
evolution occurred. The debate, as a
whole, made it clear that no one really “knows” what happened. Absolute knowledge or certainty is impossible.
With that said, I think Hamm provided significant evidence
that creationism is a reasonable belief.
Personally, I believe the evidence shows without any “reasonable doubt”
(borrowing a term from the legal field, which recognizes that absolute
knowledge and certainty is impossible) that God created the world in six
literal days. At the very least, there
is enough evidence for creation that a reasonable man can believe in
creationism.
Third, the debate about creationism and evolution is only a
small part of the real issue. The real
issue is whether men and women are sinful creatures destined for hell because
of our sin, but God sacrificed His only Son to pay for our sins; we can be
forgiven of our sins and spend eternity in heaven by believing in Jesus Christ.
At times, Hamm veered away from the science and spoke about the
Bible as a whole. Initially, I was
frustrated by this approach thinking he failed to use his allotted time to “prove”
creationism and “debunk” evolution.
Later, I decided that Hamm’s approach was correct. The ultimate goal is not to win a debate
about creation. The more important issue
is salvation. Hamm even explained the
entire plan of salvation in the debate.
Since creationism and evolution are really just a small part
of the total discussion, a person should look at all of the evidence about
God. There is significant historical
evidence demonstrating the authenticity of the Bible, the fact that Jesus live,
Jesus performed miracles, Jesus was executed, and Jesus rose from the
dead. If a reasonable person looks at
all of the evidence, not just the scientific evidence, he must conclude there
is more evidence supporting the existence of God and that Jesus died for our
sins, than there is evidence to the contrary.
Hamm correctly expanded the scope of the debate; the more that a person
sees the more overwhelming the evidence to support God and the Bible.
Fourth, several times Nye answered questions by saying that
he did not know. The lack of answers
about why man exists illustrates the emptiness of evolution and should lead
someone to look for deeper answers. As
Hamm pointed out, the Bible answers these questions. There is more to life than just being an
animal with no purpose. God has a plan.
Fifth, as Nye explained evolution, it became apparent that
people do not really live as evolutionists.
Evolution supports the idea of the survival of the fittest. If we lived that way, then racism would
continue and it would be acceptable for stronger races to subjugate lesser
races. Slavery would be acceptable. The persecution of minority groups, including
homosexuals, would be acceptable. No one
could claim any moral ground like homosexuals should be treated equally. Why?
According to evolution, the strongest survive so no one claim that
minorities should receive any special treatment. If they need special treatment to survive,
then they should be extinct. Of course,
such life is unacceptable to evolutionists.
Accordingly, they do not even live by their own purported beliefs.
Finally, Nye, on numerous occasions, explained that he was
afraid that creationism would cause people to stop developing scientific
technologies. This argument is,
honestly, very lame. Creationists and Evolutionists
currently work under the same natural laws.
Gravity and other natural laws apply to everyone. A Creationist is perfectly capable of
developing technologies and Hamm provided numerous examples of Creationists
excelling in the areas of science. Nye
attempted to create a tragic disaster caused by creationism. No such threat exists and his attempt illustrates
the overall desperation of his position.