Skip to content

“Ham on Nye” and Creationism, Evolution

February 8, 2014

There has been quite a stir over the recent “Ham on Nye” debate.  If you’ve not been following, the debate question was, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” (as posed by moderator Tom Foreman of CNN at the debate).  It was held at the Creation Museum (in Kentucky) of Answers in Genesis, started by Ken Ham, the debater on the “yes” side of the question.

Now actually, I only watched the introduction, not the debate itself.  However, I have high interest in issues surrounding religion and science and related areas.  So I’ve checked in on how the debate generally went, how it’s been responded to, etc.  I imagine, as I’ve seen noted, that this debate (or any similar one) has done little to change people’s minds.  But that doesn’t mean it is unimportant.  At the least, it is an interesting glimpse into the American scene and how the perpetual tensions between religion and science are being played out in one large segment of our society.  There are practical implications, among them the nature of the science education your kids or grandkids will get (particularly involving evolution and potentially the biblical literature or “creationist” views about evolution and creation). 

One objection from the evolution side (represented by Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”) to the debate itself is that even holding it might lend undeserved credibility to the creationist side.  It should be noted here, for those unaware, that Ham’s and the museum’s version of creationism is the “young earth” variety, requiring an interpretation of both Genesis and all scientific data that fits with an age of the earth and universe of only 10,000 years or less.  This is not as fringe a belief as many might suppose.  Gallup polling seems to indicate, over many years, that 40-some percent of the American public holds to it.  (I’ve seen estimates that whittle down the actual likely percentage to around 10, but regardless, it is a large enough minority to be of note, and of at least some local if not state or national political significance.)

So, did you watch the debate, or do you plan to? (just “Google” it.) Your impressions?  Interesting observations?
To me, perhaps as important as anything is that such a debate was staged and that it had a sizable following, either watchers or interested parties such as reporters, bloggers like me and other “second-hand” observers. Many of us are discussing it on blogs and social media… and probably around the metaphorical water cooler.  I’m sure it’s a big church topic in certain circles as well.  But…
Does it really matter? Does a debate that involves a clearly “matter of faith” view of important science subjects (age of the earth, e.g.) that does run counter to mountains of evidence in any way advance productive discussion? Does it lead to anything positive, either for Christian faith or for the advancement of our understanding of the world and life? 
I also wonder whether it advances understanding and mutual respect between people on the “sides” of the debate.  This, I believe is a core issue, and my tentative answer is yes, at least in this case, it may have.  If you saw the debate, please chime in, but from summaries of it, it sounds like both debaters were respectful and generally polite.  It did not have a spirit of acrimony.  If true, it hopefully will decrease rather than increase hostility and polarization around this important issue.  If so, it could be at least a small help in decreasing the sense of being embattled and threatened that fundamentalists tend to live within.  Do you agree? What else do you see? 
5 Comments leave one →
  1. February 8, 2014 2:22 pm

    I watched, then realized it wasn’t so much a debate as much as Ken Ham’s promo for his “Creation Museum”. He didn’t want to debate, exchange ideas or search for truth. His truth is in his “book”, and even though 90% of the thinking world disagrees he will never be swayed.

    • February 9, 2014 8:05 am

      Thanks for the comment! I’ve heard some similar comments. And I supposed having and hosting the debate worked well for Mr. Ham in that respect. I heard he also fairly directly gave an appeal for his version of “the Gospel” of faith in Christ.

      Do you think the public was informed or positively stimulated in any way through the whole thing?

  2. February 9, 2014 1:36 pm

    I think Ham made it pretty clear that there simply could be no evidence that would ever change his mind, as his faith trumps and evidence we might unearth. So how could there ever really be a meaningful debate between these two sides? If evidence isn’t how we decide what we should teach our kids about science, then why not teach the controversy about everything, even when one side has been thoroughly debunked by the evidence? If it’s ok to teach intelligent design, then let’s also teach flat earth vs spherical, germs vs demons as the cause of disease and so forth:

    • February 10, 2014 8:30 am

      Hey, Jerry. Thanks for the comment. You have a point (though it IS a bit more complex). I don’t mind the commercial link, either. (I should probably do a lot more linking back to my blog as well.) Your concepts and art work are pretty clever! I hope your enterprise is doing well.

      I also hope you’ll keep visiting the site and chiming in on other subjects also. I get steady readership but have found it hard, frankly, to get much discussion… probably because I tend to go on too long, and too in-depth sometimes :). Hope to “see” you again!


  1. “Ham on Nye” and Creationism, Evolution |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: