Have
you ever wondered about the origin of the universe and everything in it? How
did the solar system form the way it did in order to make Earth habitable?
Then, though habitable, how did life come into existence on Earth? The oldest
theory or belief, of course, is that God created everything all as it is within
a six-day period. This theory was and is stated in the first book of the Bible,
Genesis. However, within the last few decades, scientists have attempted to
discover another possibility through gathering and analyzing evidence. A new
theory that explained our existence was developed. It has been named Evolution
because it proposes that human beings evolved through billions of years
eventually into the beings we are now. This new theory was accepted and is now
taught in schools. Yet, the teachings in Genesis did not die out the way belief
in Roman and Greek gods did. The president of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, asked “The Science Guy,” Bill Nye in
2014 to debate with him concerning the topic of the creation or evolution of
humans. However, Ken Ham should have been more careful during the debate
because the Bible does not ask to be defended with evidence, but is to be
accepted by faith.
To begin with, what is evidence and
theory in respect to science? Bill Nye, within the debate, used scientific
evidence within his argument. Scientific evidence is something in the existing
world that humans can sense. It must be something that humans can see, taste,
touch tangibly, smell, or hear. Therefore, emotions or psychological feelings –
as in having a bad or good feeling about something – cannot be used as
scientific evidence.
Such evidence is greatly used to
promote a theory such as a theory concerning the origin of the universe. A
theory is a hypothesis supported by scientific evidence. Many theories can be
proved through direct observation. An example would be the theory that the
earth is a sphere or ovoid rather than flat. This became a fact once it was
proved through space travel and satellite photos. However, some theories can’t be
or haven’t yet been proved. In addition to Creationism or Evolution, an example
of such a theory would be the Tectonic Plate Theory. Scientists have observed
the effect that the movement of tectonic plates have such as volcanoes and
earthquakes. They have also gathered evidence that tectonic plates used to be
different locations in years past such as similar fossils on different
continents. Even so, while widely accepted in science and published in
scientific journals and textbooks, it is still only a theory because it has not
been directly observed. Scientists could discover today a new piece of evidence
that destroys the theory of tectonic plates.
Therefore, even if a theory is widely
accepted, we must keep in mind that it is indeed still a theory. Faith is when
a theory is accepted as fact and is trusted to be true. Since traveling back in
time is currently impossible, any personal stance about the origin of the
universe is therefore faith no matter how much scientific evidence is gathered
or debated.
With this in mind, it can be concluded
that Ken Ham initially asked Bill Nye to debate a topic of faith. Evolution is
the first scientific theory to challenge another theory attempting to use the
same evidence or challenging the validation of said evidence. It is clear that
the result of this debate proved nothing. Those biased towards Evolution say
that Bill Nye clearly won. Patterson, an author for the Reports of the National
Center for Science Education writes, “To the scientifically literate, Nye
clearly won the debate…” Yet, those bias towards Creationism, my own Christian friends
and family, say that Ken Ham clearly won. Therefore, what was the point of this
debate?
This question is key because each person
had a different motive for holding this debate. Therefore, each side “won” in
different ways. Bill Nye came into the debate as a lawyer would enter a
courtroom; presenting evidence and speaking convincingly to a jury. The website
for Answers in Genesis posted an
article that said, “Mr. Nye used the ‘skeptical method’ by the way, which is to
throw out numerous arguments, true or false, and hope to deceive people into
thinking he won… Mr. Nye admitted to using this method after the debate.”
(Hodge). As such, Nye did win since the swaying of a person’s emotional opinion
is how American society deems winners in arguments. However, this same article
also explains Ham’s motivation for the debate. Answers in Genesis says, “But Mr. Ham didn’t lose the debate (and
the gospel was spread to millions of people)” (Hodge). In respect to this, Mark
15:16 states, “He (Jesus) said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the
gospel to all creation.’” The job that Jesus gave to those that follow Him is
to tell, not convince. Therefore, each person won within their own motivation
for participating in the debate.
So, creation should not be defended with
evidence, yet Ken Ham, though his motive may have been to tell of the gospel,
essentially ended up doing so because of Bill Nye’s debating tactics. Through
evidence, a scientific hypothesis is either proved wrong or proved viable, not
factual. Another hypothesis using the same evidence can also be viable, yet
both cannot be true. Without evidence proving one wrong, the other cannot be
proved solely viable. As far as evidence goes, both creationists and
evolutionists seem to think they can defend their faith with the evidence
provided.
This issue of creationists turning to
evidence in defense of their faith is addressed in Reports for the National
Center for Science Education. Patterson writes, “However, I think the Nye–Ham
debate will unleash unprecedented divisiveness within the creationist movement.
I expect that the ‘traditional’ creation-science ministries… will
condemn Ham’s candor as a harmful blunder… because their less candid
polemical debate strategy which tried to obscure the biblical roots of their
assertions and pretend to have a scientific basis had been so successful for so
long.” Essentially, Ham didn’t argue evidence as much as he did faith. He
honestly stated within the debate which parts of his argument were evidence
based and which were biblically based. According to Patterson, this was to the
dismay of previous creationist movements trying to use scientific evidence over
the faith required to believe in the Bible.
In this respect, nowhere is it stated in
the Bible that God asks His followers to defend the Bible and its teachings. In
fact, Hebrews 11:3 states, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed
at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was
visible.” The Bible goes as far as to say that creation can’t be proved or
disproved with evidence. Therefore, if we chose to believe creation, we must
understand it by faith. John 20:29 states, “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because
you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and
yet have believed.’”
When it comes to creation and the gospel, Jesus blesses those who don’t need
evidence to have faith.
So, if creation isn’t to be defended with
evidence, is Answers in Genesis
before God a morally wrong company? Absolutely not. As stated before, any
currently valid theory cannot be disproved with current evidence, and in turn
any faith concerning that theory. The motive of Answers in Genesis, if pure before God, is to offer the Bible’s
teachings to an evidence-reliant world as a still valid theory. Historical
science can easily be colored since it is a branch of science that can only be
theorized and a topic that one must have faith.
Outside of historical science, all other
sciences come to similar conclusions despite the scientist’s belief about the
origin of the universe. An Evolutionist will believe that the law of gravity
applies same as a Creationist. The difference is in the motive for scientific
discovery. An Evolutionist will discover a new species of fish for the glory of
having been the one to discover it. A Creationist will discover a new species
of fish to find out more about God’s creation.
In essence, creation shouldn’t be defended
with evidence because God through His Word doesn’t ask for it to be. Both the
Evolution Theory and the Creation Theory require faith because they reference
the same evidence. However, Creationists should not use evidence as a defense,
but rather as complimentary to their faith. As far as the debate, Ken Ham held
this viewpoint fairly good despite Bill Nye pulling the debate towards
scientific evidence. Ham held himself very well especially considering the fact
that he is not certified as a scientist, but Bill Nye is. Therefore, when it
comes to proving Christianity as truth, the faith and life of a
Gospel-believing person is a better means of proof than scientific evidence.
Works Cited
Hodge, Bodie. "Feedback: Did Ken Ham Lose the
Debate?" Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis, 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 04 Aug. 2016.
Luskin, Casey. "The Ken Ham - Bill Nye Debate:
A Missed Opportunity." Christian Research Institute,
2014. Web. 4 Aug. 2016.
Patterson, John W. "A Reflection on the Bill
Nye - Ken Ham Debate." Reports of the National Center for Science Education. National
Center for Science Education, Mar.-Apr. 2014. Web.
4 Aug. 2016.
