I confess that I didn't see the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate on February 4. I do plan to watch it though I am not sure it will be much different than other similar debates that I have watched…some of the best being between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox.
However, I did get a chance to read some of the articles written after the debate. Christians were generally positive while non-theists were typically either dismissive or aghast that the debate even took place.
The conventional wisdom is this: All intelligent scientists and people believe in evolution. Thus if you don't believe in evolution, it is obvious that you are not intelligent. Case closed. End of story.
That's why most evolutionists (including Dawkins) didn't think the debate should even take place. In their minds, by debating a creationist, you actually give some semblence of credence to their views. You actually act like there is something to debate. It is sort of like debating a pig on the virtues of cleanliness. The pig can't and won't understand you and you'll just get your hands dirty in the process.
But the debate did take place and for the most part people seem to agree that Ken Ham at least sounded smart, "vaguely professional," and like "a reasonable human being." And that's the other big problem for the evolutionist. When you debate creationists, they often sound somewhat intelligent and their arguments sound somewhat reasonable. But we know that they cannot be since (see above) "all intelligent scientists and people believe in evolution." Thus, these creationists are simply clever, slick, power-hungry individuals who are able to play to the common man/woman who is also not very intelligent.
I guess I am one of them crazy, gullible yokels.
Now I admit that there is much that I don't understand. I have read many evolutionary essays that have made my head spin. I am not a scientist or an expert on scientific issues. I generally agree with the young earth creationists but realize there is much that is hard to explain and some things in Genesis that may allow for gaps or longer time spans. We have to approach these issues with humility, teachability, and a willingness to be corrected.
But there are a few things that I am reasonably sure of…
1. No person is totally objective. We all bring our presuppostions to the table and see things through a subjective lens. Thus, to act as if you have reached a state of total objectivity and complete knowledge is the ultimate ignorance (1 Corinthians 8:2). And to act as if an atheistic scientist is approaching the data objectively without an agenda while the creationist is approaching it subjectively with an agenda is naive at best.
2. Historically, the scientific movement emerged within the Judeo-Christian worldview. Thus, to argue that Christianity is "anti-science" is to be purposefully or unknowingly misleading. The Harvard philosopher Alfred North Whitehead noted that science developed in Europe because of the widespread "faith in the possbility of science derivative from medieval theology" (Stark, The Triumph of Christianity, 284). Indeed as Johannes Kepler, one of the great early scientists, stated:
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God.
In other words, unless the universe is ordered and rational, then there is no sense in studying it. But if it is rational and ordered by a rational God, then its mysteries can be discovered. Thus, it is no accident that the majority of early scientists were very religious men with a Judeo-Christian worldview.
3. If we truly live in a materialistic world with matter being the only true reality, then our very thoughts are simply random chemical processes in the physical brain. So who cares what Dawkins, Ham, Nye, or anyone else thinks?
4. The fairly well-established scientific theory that the universe emerged in an instant out of nothing is a pretty difficult (or dare I say, impossible) concept to explain from a non-theistic standpoint.
5. As Ham indicated in the debate, there is a difference between observational science and philosophical science. The origin of the universe is not observable, repeatable science that can be subjected to the scientific method. It is a philosophy (and even a religion) that must be accepted with some element of faith.
6. The notion that believing in God is a killer to scientific curiosity (the "God of the gaps" argument) is simply not true (see #2 above). If I came home today and found a full dinner immaculately prepared for me on the table, I could infer that it either miraculously appeared out of nowhere or that someone else prepared it for me. Yes, trying to figure out how it emerged randomly and spontaneously might be fun and challenging to my imagination. But I would argue that the greater mystery is trying to figure out why my wife would love me enough to do something special for me in the first place. The mystery of relationship is far greater than any other mystery and the pursuit of its knowledge is far deeper than any other knowledge.
7. When I look at the intricacy and complexity of the universe…when I observe the beauty, creativity, and symmetry of nature…when I consider the wonders of the human body…when I ponder the mysteries of life, consciousness, and love…then I am moved to awe and to worship. Like a child, I may not understand all things, but I can see the handiwork of my Father and know He loves me.
If that makes me crazy, then call me crazy.
