Skip to comments.Nye vs Ham; Evolution vs Creation debate review by Dr. Mohler
Posted on 02/05/2014 7:12:10 AM PST by edcoil
From Mr. Ham.
"Here is a report by Dr. Al Mohler that really nails what the debate was all about. A very insightful article. I urge you all to read it and spread it around:"
(Excerpt) Read more at albertmohler.com ...
I saw about 40 minutes of it, entertaining.
Ham (Creationist rep) was a young Earther and mainly just lectured on Bible verses while Nye (Science Guy rep) seemed very prepared for this show (which is all it was) and he lectured the Creationists on rather basic facts like the speed of light and how far Australia is from Mount Ararat, and that the creationists have not come up with a single Kangaroo bone between the two places many thousands of miles separated.(none of that is new BTW)
That forced Ham (Creationist rep) to argue that there is not a single law of science observed today that we can assume applied even a few hundred years ago.
Excellent ... thanx for posting
The whole idea is rubbish.
Excellent article - thank you.
Great piece. Thanks for the link.
The key is to focus on the lack of scientific evidence for evolution, as we have no fossil evidence for transition from one species to another, and forget arguing about the time table.
That's a desperate stretch.
I think the key is balance between the two. We need science and, we need faith.
Science created Lance Armstrongs drugs, apparently there were no men of faith there to advise him not to use them, hence his downfall from grace.
Science creates lots of things and we need people of faith to decided which we actually need.
It’s all about “how” versus “why”.
6,000 years vs. 4.5 billion years isn't really within the margin of error. Someone is very, very, very wrong.
I also detected an implicit threat from Nye: that if we and our posterity will not accept his religious dogma, we will be somehow be constrained from technology and our nation will fall to nations that do accept his religious dogma.
For me it comes down to the notion of humility. The problem I see with anti-creationists is that they seem to be overly impressed with scientific discovery, forgetting that it is a field of thought where man is continually proving himself wrong. Further, they seem to have two stumbling blocks; (a) a lack of confidence that God is powerful enough to be capable of a six-day creation, and (b) that man’s reverse engineering of creation (whether God-driven or not) is competent to reach such far-reaching conclusions without missing some unknown factor that would send their conclusions in a far different direction. The latter seems especially problematic in that the very length of time required to accommodate the macro-evolutionary model makes it exponentially more likely that man doesn’t have sufficient information to accurately extrapolate a scientifically defensible conclusion.
Creationists, on the other hand, should exhibit humility as well, similarly allowing for things that God hasn’t spelled out so as to prevent them from dogmatically staking out a position on the mechanics of His creation. Everyone seems to agree that the Bible was not intended to be a service manual for the planet, so while it’s legitimate to defend the creation story in general, debating the mechanics in a venue where the “other side” has home court advantage, by virtue of having built the arena, is of limited value and is engaged in with some risk to credibility in other, more spiritually significant areas.
The threat was more than that - it was that if we did not accept his worldview, our children would be taken from us.
The paragraph that jumped out at me most was the author’s recognition that the conclusions that both reached were based on foundational assumptions that both agreed they were not willing to compromise on.
According to general relativity both could be right. Time is relative.
That is what the Islamic fundamentalists argued to shut down scientific progress in the Arab-Islamic world back in the Medieval period. They claimed those who thought nature is governed by natural law limited Allah's freedom of action. Trying to find natural laws was a waste because Allah at any moment can change them and further such laws were blasphemous. Shows how Ham and his ilk go against millenia of Christian philosophy and theology that has supported scientific research.
The problem with that is you assume that it's a zero-sum game, and if you could somehow prove evolution wrong then that automatically means Biblical creation is right. That ignores the fact that there are as many stories of creation as there are religions and cultures.
I would say that Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation or his Laws of Motion applied a few hundred years ago, or a few thousand. I'd go further and add millions and billions of years but according to Ham the Earth is nowhere near that old.
I believe God created us through a process. I don’t think Darwinian evolution explains that process accurately at all. Neither does Creationism.
Our misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about that process has been exploited to undermine faith in God in general and Christianity specifically.
And because of length contraction, London could either be 6,000 or 6 miles from LA!
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.[a] 20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
I was a little disappointed by Hamm (with whom I agree). He failed to use a variety of arguments and physical examples that I’ve heard him present in his earlier videos.
Both of these guys are nuts.
"The question was not really about the ark or sediment layers or fossils. It was about the central worldview clash of our times, and of any time: the clash between the worldview of the self-declared reasonable man and the worldview of the sinner saved by grace." - Albert Mohler
I like Mohler's analysis better than yours.
I’ll accept that proving evolution wrong is a great place to start.
(Note: Adaptation within a species is NOT proof of evolution from one species to another)
With all due respect the bible never claimed a 6000 year old earth. .ever! This 6000 year claim is some crap a bad bible scholar came up with...
George McCready Price. Creationists have created a little cargo cult based on his "flood geology".
While the whole idea of a 6000 year old world is a no brainer, there is nothing to suggest that our universe wasn’t concocted by someone 12 billion years ago.
Ken Ham argued no such thing. He argued that because there is a God that created us that we can be sure of the laws of logic and the laws of nature that were set in place by Him. He argued that Bill Nye was borrowing from the biblical worldview when believing in things like logic and laws of nature. He wasn’t arguing against the laws of nature.
You are doing the same thing that Bill Nye tried to do last night. You are setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. Ken Ham is a young earth creationists who loves science and discovery. He isn’t trying to shut down scientific progress. To equate him with Islamic fundamentalists that hate science is dishonest at best.
He clearly demonstrated that there are many published and accomplished scientist that also believe in a young earth and six day creation. Dr Damadian who invented the MRI is one of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOM0v0dQnjI
The reason the debate came about is because Bill Nye claimed that creationists should keep their ideas to themselves and not teach them to their own children and he equated it with the destruction of scientific progress in the USA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU begin at 1:45 mark. Also, scientists like Richard Dawkins equate teaching creation to child abuse.
Answers is Genesis posted a video refuting Nye’s argument and the debate was born out of that. Ken Ham isn’t forcing his worldview on anyone. The people that listen to him want to learn what he has to say and they want their children to learn it too. You have a problem with that? Bill Nye does!
That is the basic premise of the “Ultimate Proof of Creationism”.
That there is logic at all for the unbeliever to attempt to use to “debunk” the Creator.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Agreed! How does logic and consciousness evolve?
Young Earthers force themselves into that position, and yes he argued that.
Show me exactly where Ken Ham argued that?
Nye brought up the rather obvious point that light from distant stars (that we see) takes millions of years (or more) to reach earth.
That is an obvious example where Young Earth narrative falls apart.
I read a creation book once that argued that God created the light on route so we could see it immediately, but if you can believe that then its perfectly logical to assume that he created everything on Earth to look old, as he did the star light (it also means the star light really doesn't come from stars), if that's your argument.
And if they believe that then Creation Science makes absolutely no sense at all, which is the case for the young Earthers obviously.
I guess they could argue that stars that are millions of miles away are really only a few miles away.
“there is not a single law of science observed today that we can assume applied even a few hundred years ago.”
This is what you said he argued. Not a single law?
There are problems with dating methods. That isn’t arguing against every single law of science. There are lots of assumptions used in dating methods. Ken Ham addressed them. What law of science did he assume doesn’t apply even a few hundred years ago when he argued about dating methods?
You don’t have to agree with him but don’t make arguments that he didn’t make. That is dishonest.
Have you ever read the “potato peeler” analogy of the assumptions inherent in atomic dating?
radiometric dating vs the potato peeler:
No I haven’t. Do you have a link?
That is an obvious example where Young Earth narrative falls apart.
Check out post #16. They don't let that "obvious point" get in the way.
:) Nope, don’t have a link one! JK
Thanks. You anticipated my question.
That it is just assumed that dating methods shown accurate for thousands of years apply to millions of years.
That is the same as saying its just assumed that the observable laws of science don't have an expiration date.
That is the same as saying that they do have one.
Good luck with that.
LOL, I love these threads :)
I get it, so everyday could be my birthday?
If time dilation in general relativity means that the earth is both 4.5 billion years old AND 6,000 years old, then length contraction says that the Empire State Building is in my garage.