A few days ago, Bill Nye and Ken Ham threw down at the Creation Museum. The topic? Where the earth came from, how old our universe is, what should be taught in science classrooms, and what is science. All topics of vast importance spoken on by true experts in their respective areas, the burning question many watchers have post debate is this: Who won?
I think there are two broad categories of people who watched the debate, and your fundamental beliefs on the front end determine who the winner was.
Person Type 1: People who don't think the Bible is the Word of God
If you don't think that the Bible is the Word of God, there basically wasn't a debate. Bill Nye clearly won. Ham's arguments were "unapologetically" based on the Bible.
Winner from this perspective: Bill Nye
Person Type 2: People who do think the Bible is the Word of God
The former argument was quite simple. If you don't think the Bible is anything more than a collection of ancient texts, there is no reason to bye (pun and subsequent misspelling intended) into any of Ham's arguments. The second type of person is a bit more complicated.
On this second front, we need to wade into an interpretation of Genesis. On this front Ham made a good point: If you think the Bible is God's word, it is essential to read it 'naturally'. By this, Ham means that poetry should be treated as poetry, history should be treated as history, parables should be treated as parables, and prophecy should be treated as prophecy (there are other types of Biblical texts, but those examples give a few good examples).
Here I disagree with Ham, and fall on the side of notable Christian apologist William Lane Craig. In numerous debates, Craig points out that a natural reading of Genesis chapter 1 is open to numerous valid interpretations, including ones that allow for a universe MUCH older than 6000 years. Because it is true to the text to interpret the early chapters of Genesis as poetic or figurative (read it for yourself and see what style you think the chapters are written in), there is no conflict between the Bible and a relatively old universe.
In this case, because the Bible is not in conflict with an old universe, Ham's only reason to fight against the tide of reason concerning the impossibility of a worldwide flood, starlight in transit, radiometric dating, and the fossil record disappears.
Because of this, even if you think the Bible is the word of God, the winner is...
Winner from this perspective: Bill Nye
And there you are. No matter which way you look at it, Bill Nye defeated Ken Ham.
For my thoughts on the list of arguments used by Nye check out these posts:
Starlight in Transit:
I think there are two broad categories of people who watched the debate, and your fundamental beliefs on the front end determine who the winner was.
Person Type 1: People who don't think the Bible is the Word of God
If you don't think that the Bible is the Word of God, there basically wasn't a debate. Bill Nye clearly won. Ham's arguments were "unapologetically" based on the Bible.
Winner from this perspective: Bill Nye
Person Type 2: People who do think the Bible is the Word of God
The former argument was quite simple. If you don't think the Bible is anything more than a collection of ancient texts, there is no reason to bye (pun and subsequent misspelling intended) into any of Ham's arguments. The second type of person is a bit more complicated.
On this second front, we need to wade into an interpretation of Genesis. On this front Ham made a good point: If you think the Bible is God's word, it is essential to read it 'naturally'. By this, Ham means that poetry should be treated as poetry, history should be treated as history, parables should be treated as parables, and prophecy should be treated as prophecy (there are other types of Biblical texts, but those examples give a few good examples).
Here I disagree with Ham, and fall on the side of notable Christian apologist William Lane Craig. In numerous debates, Craig points out that a natural reading of Genesis chapter 1 is open to numerous valid interpretations, including ones that allow for a universe MUCH older than 6000 years. Because it is true to the text to interpret the early chapters of Genesis as poetic or figurative (read it for yourself and see what style you think the chapters are written in), there is no conflict between the Bible and a relatively old universe.
In this case, because the Bible is not in conflict with an old universe, Ham's only reason to fight against the tide of reason concerning the impossibility of a worldwide flood, starlight in transit, radiometric dating, and the fossil record disappears.
Because of this, even if you think the Bible is the word of God, the winner is...
Winner from this perspective: Bill Nye
And there you are. No matter which way you look at it, Bill Nye defeated Ken Ham.
For my thoughts on the list of arguments used by Nye check out these posts:
Starlight in Transit:
- http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/01/universe-is-much-older-than-6000-years.html
- http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/search/label/Noah%27s%20Ark%20and%20the%20Flood
- http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/10/radiometric-dating.html
No comments:
Post a Comment