The Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate conducted Feb. 4, 2014 at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, was anti-climactic at best. Although the two men were evenly matched as to their general scientific knowledge, their lack of technical expertise in any specific scientific field was also glaringly evident. Both men were able to argue various evolutionary or creationism viewpoints only up to the level of their understanding. I doubt that either man would be considered qualified to teach science much beyond the high school level. As a result, I suspect that very few who witnessed the event became better educated or were convinced to change their minds one way or the other. In my opinion, the debate ended in a predictable draw.
View debate here.
That said, the debate did show that the argument over the two main theories of how the universe came into being, or one’s idea about the origin of everything, including life itself, depends largely on what sort of assumptions one is willing, or not willing, to make. Everyone starts out with a bias, or a particular pre-conceived world view. Any real scientist should be open to allowing his/her worldview to be challenged, which is why such debates are to be encouraged. Bill Nye demonstrated that he was open to debating the issue, which is more than could be said for most proponents of the evolutionary model. The vast majority of evolution advocates refuse to participate in this type of discussion for the simple reason that they become frustrated by the inability to prove their own beloved theory.
We must keep in mind that to lend credence to a theory, or advance a theory beyond the realm of mere possibility, one must be able to demonstrate that it matches and explains the available evidence. This is done by employing what has been described as the scientific method. The scientific method consists of systematic observation of one or more aspects of what we term “reality”. The scientific method consists of measurement, experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. A hypothesis is nothing more than an explanation for a phenomenon. To be considered a “scientific hypothesis”, an explanation must be testable. To become anything more than just a theory, the test results must be consistent, repeatable, and verifiable. Evolution simply does not rise above the level of hypothesis because it does not meet this strict scientific standard. In other words, there is no verifiable proof that the theory of evolution is anything more than just a theory.
Mr. Ham pointed out the fact that two people may form a different hypothesis and/or draw vastly different conclusions after observing the exact same evidence. Mr. Nye repeatedly pointed out that by employing the scientific method, one is able to make predictions, yet Nye failed to provide a single example where the employment of the scientific method has ever led to any indisputable proofs for evolution or provided any sort of a direct refutation of the creationist viewpoint.
Humility is the ability to admit that one doesn’t know all the answers. Albert Einstein contended that all of mankind’s scientific knowledge is insignificant compared to reality! Einstein accepted the fact that although man was an intelligent inquisitive creature, he was limited in his ability to understand the mysteries of the universe. Einstein declared that, “Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.” This profound statement underscores the futility of conducting any serious debate on how the universe actually came into existence. Einstein described his religion as consisting “of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” If a great mind such as Einstein could not fathom the intricacies of reality, who are we to claim the ability to unlock the mysteries of God?
Many scientists in all fields of research continue to believe in special creation because they have, in fact, repeatedly employed the scientific method and found that the results continue to support the hypothesis of intelligent design, or special creation. To his credit, Mr. Ham did mention the names of a few highly regarded experts in various fields, men and women who share the creationist viewpoint as a direct result of the conclusions they have reached after decades of intensive research in specific fields of scientific study.
The indisputable fact is that there are thousands of molecular chemists, particle physicists, quantum mechanics, micro-biologists, astronomers, advanced mathematicians, and other highly regarded scientists and engineers who continue to believe in special creation for the simple reason that in their opinion, it is the hypothesis that best fits the observable evidence.
The theory of evolution has been demonstrated to be full of holes, yet there is absolutely NOTHING in the observable universe that disproves special creation. On the contrary, the evidence that there is indeed a God, a non-created omni-potent supreme being who created everything observable, (and many things we cannot observe), including the all important and often overlooked dimension of time itself, is simply overwhelming. Are the six days of creation as described in the opening chapter of Genesis to be taken literally? Of course they are, but only with the understanding that man’s concept of time is limited by his own experience. God alone, in his infinite wisdom, determines the length of a second, the movement and order of stars, and the number of heartbeats each of us is given.
“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” [2 Peter 3:8]