Lux Lucet

Last week we looked a Chapter 1 of Bill Nye’s book Undeniable, Evolution and the Science of Creation. This week’s post will examine Chapter 2 of that same book, a chapter titled “The Great Creationism Debate.”

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

On February 4, 2014 Bill Nye and Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG) debated the question “Is creation a viable model of origins?”

The debate must have made a big impression on Nye, for he states at the beginning of Chapter 2 that “in many ways it [the debate] was the impetus for me to write this book.

According to Wikipedia, the origin of the debate were in a video posted by Nye on Big Think titled Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children.

In the video, Nye laments the that “Denial of evolution is unique to the United States.” This is a problem, Nye tells us, because it threatens to retard our progress and prosperity as a nation.

What’s interesting about Nye’s remark about the unique failure of the United States to bow down before the altar of Darwin is that he immediately follows it by saying “We are the world’s most advanced technological [civilization?]. I mean you could say Japan, but generally the United States is where most of the innovation still happens. People still move to the United States. And that’s largely because of the intellectual capital that we have, the general understanding of science.”

As Nye sees it, the stubborn resistance of Christians to accept Darwinian evolution is a threat to all this.

Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, it may be worth asking, just why is that, at least according to Bill Nye, the one nation where there is strong resistance to Darwinism is also, in Nye’s opinion, at the same time the most technologically advanced civilization?

These two ideas appear to be in conflict. If believing the Bible is really the social retardant Nye thinks it is, would it not follow that the US would be among the world’s most backward nations, not among its leading lights?

It seems to me that Nye, who claims to have a great curiosity about the world around us, would be curious enough to look into this strange [according to his world view] phenomenon, but the thought does not seem to occur to him.

For those interested, a video of the 2014 debate can be seen here.

Nye’s Debate Reflections

According to Nye, “Our issue was whether or not creationism is ‘viable’ (the term agreed upon) as an explanation of…well, of anything. I emphasize that I did not disparage anyone’s religion” (9). This sentence is worthy of a few comments.

First, Nye does not explicitly define what he means by creationism, but one supposes from the context he means the Bible’s assertion, as summarized by the Westminster standards, that God created all things of nothing, by the Word of his power, in the space of six days and all very good.

In the view of this author, this lack of explicit definitions is a consistent problem in this chapter. Granted, Undeniable is a is not a formal scientific treatise, but it is not too much to expect an author who claims to value intellectual rigor to give some evidence of this himself.

Second, is debating the “viability” of the Bible’s account of creation really the way Christian apologists should go about their work? For the record, this author has heard Ken Ham speak in person and has greatly benefited from his work. On the other hand, one could argue that Christians are not in the business of debating the viability of God’s Word, but of proclaiming its prophetic truth. This is done both by pointing out the inconsistencies in the views of our opponents and showing the logical consistency of the Scriptures. Debating the viability of the Word of God appears to fall short of this.

After all, simply because something is viable does not mean it’s true. When the police investigate a crime scene, there can be many viable explanations of the evidence, but only one of them is accurate.

In like fashion, scientists can develop many viable (workable) theories to explain a particular natural phenomenon, including the biodiversity seen all around us, Darwinism and Creationism are but two of them. Perhaps a better question for debate would have been “Is the Bible’s account of creation true?’ I’m certain that Ken Ham would answer “yes.” And I would like to have seen Ham make this argument rather than the lesser one of merely attempting to show that the Bible’s account is viable.

Nye claims that he did not disparage anyone’s religion. If by this he means that he didn’t explicitly call Christians “stupid,” then that’s true. But it’s hard to listen to Nye for very long, whether in the debate with Ken Ham or elsewhere, and not come away with the impression that he holds Christians and Christianity in contempt.

In chapter two alone, Nye calls the creationism, “laughable,” “ludicrous,” and states that children who believe the Scriptural account of creation are opposed to “progress” (however defined) and “will become society’s burdens rather than its producers” (10).

With language of this sort, it is difficult to see how Nye honestly can claim not to have disparaged Christianity.

What is more, Nye’s assertions are completely unsupported by any evidence. How does he know that children who believe in Biblical creation will become burdens to society? It seems to me there is a great deal of evidence that runs counter to Nye’s claim.

For example, Nye himself, as noted above, explicitly admits that a nation can have a large number of individuals who believe in creation and at the same time be technologically advanced.

In my own personal experience, I know of numerous individuals who are both successful professionals and who believe what the Bible teaches about the origin of the universe.

For example, I personally know two engineers who design jet engines for one of the largest, most respected companies in the world, both of whom believe what the Bible teaches about creation. They are both family men and are, by any reasonable definition of the term, productive and successful. Both of them make daily use of science on their jobs, yet neither one sees fit to disparage what the Word of God teaches about the creation of the world.

Does Nye wish us to call a man can hold a job requiring a high degree of skill, successfully raise a family, pay his taxes, and serve in his church a “burden to society?”

If so, I could only wish that we had many more such “burdens” in our nation.

(To be continued…)