Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye - Why the debate Matters

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye – The pair will face off in an epic battle that will once and for all decide the truth about human origins. At least that is the attitude of the hype surrounding the event.

I recently read similar article posted to Facebook called “God vs. Evolution.”  My only comment was ‘I wonder if they know they are supposed to be fighting.”

When I first saw Ham/Nye debate announced I have to admit that a very cynical part of me wanted the subtitle to read, “How much stupid can you fit into one room?”  Clearly that was not the right response, but I want to examine why the idea of such a debate irritates me.

The Ham/Nye debate and the God vs. Evolution article both share the limited perceptive that God and modern science are somehow pitted against each other.

Why do these two sides of the debate hold so strong to their stance? That is other than the fact that they seem to be somewhat unaware that this is a multisided debate.

Both have limited views on truth. The strict creationist and the strict material evolutionist suffer from very similar delusions. And from there both groups feel free to draw their own opposing philosophical conclusions.

The creationist, with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, assumes the Bible is the only source of truth. So if he has a question of science he goes to the Bible (FYI not a science book) for answers.

The materialist evolutionist assumes scientific reasoning is the only source of truth. Being limited by his worldview the materialist is unable to imagine the possibility of metaphysical realities much less the possibility that alternative worldviews may also offer helpful angles to viewing Truth.

Both of these positions lack imagination, and display an arrogant pride in their own system of belief.

Do we really think anyone attending the Nye/Ham debate will leave with a change of heart? I dare say that a few hours of debate will not be enough to dismantle either one of these very inflexible worldviews and rebuild a convert.

So why does it matter? Both sides will leave feeling victorious and that much more confident in their position. So in my opinion it doesn't matter, because I refuse to put on the blinders required to defend either position.  

So do you stand anywhere on the issue Aubrey? I do have my opinions on what might be the best possible explanation for origins, but I am much more interested in how the origins of our philosophical frameworks influence the way we live and how we interact with others.

For me, I always come back to the saying “All truth is God’s truth.”

God is Truth, and I am limited in my understanding of Truth.

This allows me the freedom to explore various worldviews understanding that the truth I find in each one is also limited in perspective. But to the degree it does offer truth; that truth points back to the ultimate Truth.






* thanks Kyle Roberts for teaching me some of the ideas expressed here.


Check out the book I'm writing at www.adhogan.com