Bill Nye Ken Ham debate

After watching the Ken Ham / Bill Nye debate, I must say that overall, I was quite satisfied with how it went (although I was skeptical initially).  Although the publicity side of the event was played to by both sides, each was able to balance that aspect with thoughtful interaction.  The few things I would quibble about were mostly technical debating issues.  I am thankful for at least four aspects of the debate:

1. The gospel was presented clearly by Ken Ham.  Although at times it appeared to be injected tangential to the current question, Ham understands that true faith is the first hurdle to accepting the creationist worldview.  Those statements were directed toward the general public.

2. Ken Ham was able to state his case well.  He was well prepared.  The event was managed seamlessly and the technology worked smoothly.  Ham’s poise and understanding added credibility to his propositions.

3. Bill Nye revealed his hand by acknowledging that the theological implications of creationism troubled him. He was surely speaking off-script when he asked “What happened to everyone who didn’t believe?” and said, “I find that question very troubling.”  He is clearly not as detached from the religious aspects of the debate as he carefully attempted to appear.

4. By the end of the debate, the sharp divide that was clear to all was a question of worldviews. Bill Nye’s worldview depends on his feeling that as a ‘reasonable man’ he understands his place in the universe and he is in control of his destiny. Ken Ham’s worldview is unashamedly based on his belief in the God of the Bible. The interesting thing is that whatever worldview one subscribes to is what determines the conclusions one comes to. It cannot be the other way around.

I sure wish someone would have enlightened Bill Nye about the misinformation he was propagating about “the Bible being translated so many times over three millennia” that it is basically incoherent.  That’s a dismissive assumption with no basis in reality. Anyone who seriously studies the texts knows it is simply not true.