A Battle of Worldviews: Reviewing the Debate at the Creation Museum

      

Last night, I tuned into the free live webcast of the latest national debate between evolutionary science and creationism. Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Ken Hamm represented each side.

Each represented their position well. The debate didn't devolve into personal attacks from either side and overall I thought the tone of the discussion was very respectful.

The central question posed was "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"  The debate in its essence though was one of worldviews. Hamm acknowledged this and transparently admitted his worldview was based on Scripture, while Nye contended natural science was sufficient to explain both the origin and present state of the world.  Albert Mohler does an excellent job of breaking down the issues involved with this central idea with more specificity here. 

I've come to realize that the reason I dislike political debates like those presidential candidates take part in, is that they seem to use their time for answering new questions to refute what their opponent stated previously. They never seem devote significant time to the questions, they just go around and around in rebuttal. I actually was pining for that during this debate. On several occasions, both Nye and Hamm threw out questions aimed at the other that they wanted answered. But the debate format did not require the other from doing so, nor did it offer natural opportunities to revisit those issues.  From my own recollection, Nye posed these questions more than Hamm, and therefore I was left wishing Hamm could concisely revisit what Nye had brought up.

I'd like to conclude my review by addressing the mistakes each made. And I'm going to be a little harder on Ken Hamm because he was representing my side. 

Where Nye Went Wrong:

• Nye spent a lot of time in his arguments dismissing the biblical account of Noah's Ark and the worldwide Flood. In some respects I understand why, as he knows this is part of creationism's argument for the fossil and geological record. Still, he seemed overly dismissive of details like: the possibility of Noah being able to build an ark, the ark being able to contain the animals, the realistic notion of feeding the animals, and the sea-worthiness of a vessel that size. Legitimate points of contention, but not major ones in my opinion.
• Nye also resorted to what essentially were 'bandwagon' arguments. Multiple times he advocated the evolutionary theory because "billions of people" agree with it and not creationism. I believe it was in my freshman Speech class in college we learned about debate methods like the bandwagon approach that may carry some weight, but are still very fallible. People widely accepted many things throughout history that they believed to be absolutely true, yet were proven to be false. 
• While Hamm consistently admitted to his presuppositions and assumptions (that were based on Scripture), Nye would not admit to his own. As Mohler states, "Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment."

Where Hamm Went Wrong:

• Let me start by saying Hamm exceeded my expectations. I have heard him speak on these subjects several times before and I was wary that he would reflect a dismissive attitude while making simplistic arguments. But he portrayed himself well. That said, he like Nye, resorted to fallible debate techniques. He was obviously unable to use the 'bandwagon' approach, but Hamm did fall back on a 'slippery-slope' argument: "If you let X happen, Y and Z will undoubtedly happen too - and we wouldn't want that to happen would we?" Answers in Genesis often uses this inaccurately. Last night Hamm focused on how Evolutionary Theory leads to Moral Relativism which leads to things like Euthanasia. In reality, one does not necessarily lead to another. And to accuse the other side of advocating such things is a poor argument if not outright untrue.
• As mentioned above, I wish Hamm would have been able to directly answer some of the semi-rhetorical questions Nye threw out in his presentation. Time was of the essence, so it was basically 'pick your poison' as far as what to address without going to much off topic. He did so in a couple instances, like animals having sharp teeth, space in the Ark. But he left a few issues un-addressed such as propagation of the species post-flood and speed-of-light as we observe astronomical data.
• One of Nye's strong themes was his call for young people to pursue science to keep America at the head of the pack in terms of technology, research, and discovery. Hamm did assert that creationists can be excellent scientists, as he cited several experts past and present who were young-earth scientists who contributed important advancements to the scientific community. However Nye's passion for scientific exploration and finding joy in science far surpassed Hamm's. God's creation can reveal to us amazing things, especially his incredible character (Romans 1:18-20) and we can express even more enthusiasm for science because of this truth.
• My biggest issue with Ken Hamm's presentation is his insistence on a baby-young age of the earth.  Nye repeatedly dismissed creationism because Hamm believes it's been only 4,000 years since the flood and the earth is only 6,000 years old. Now I will admit that the position I am about to take would not eliminate all of Nye's issues with creationism, but it would have taken some of the force out of his arguments. As one of my former professors, Dr. Davis, espouses in this book, the Flood may have occurred 18,000 years ago, not 4,000. As he describes comprehensively in pages 28-32 of his commentary, ancient genealogies often skipped multiple generations to highlight important figures according to the author's purpose. Gaps likely exist in the lists in Genesis 5 and 11. Therefore, AiG and Ken Hamm likely err when they simply add up the ages of those listed in the biblical account. Davis adheres to a six-day literal creation account as well as a world-wide flood, but he offers a well-supported argument that the earth, while still young, is not as young presented in this debate. Additionally, we believe Scripture to reveal a God who is infinite and all-powerful and there is every reason to believe he created this universe 'fully mature', with trees that had 100 rings in them the moment they were made, new rocks that were made with the qualities of being millions of years old, and light that instantly appeared even though it has to travel over 8 minutes to get from the sun to the earth (though the Sun was created after light according to Genesis, but you get my point).  Again, these points would not completely silence Bill Nye and others, but I would be very interested to hear him respond to this more nuanced position. 

In the end, I was encouraged that Ken Hamm shared the gospel in a way relevant to the discussion and I enjoyed the two opposing sides civily disagreeing with one another without resorting to personal attacks or mocking. I hope this does encourage people to continue to pursue scientific advancement, though hopefully we can continue to offer a biblical worldview in an appropriate way without being unfairly disregarded.