Skip to main content

Bill Nye & Ken Ham, Creation vs. Evolution Debate analysis


The creation vs. evolution debate that took place Tuesday February 4th, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. between Bill Nye and Ken Ham was fascinating. I was pleased to see both sides state their concerns about their opponent’s view very clearly and respectfully.  This type of debate is healthy for our society in that it allows two popular scientific viewpoints to present their case on a public platform for people to make an informed opinion.

I am a strong proponent of creationism because the Bible is factually true and scientifically accurate. The Bible is the most scrutinized book in the history of mankind and it has yet to be disproven by anyone. I am writing this article to address some of the topics of concern that Bill Nye addressed and provide resources to clarify these concerns both Biblically and scientifically. The more we understand that God’s word agrees with God’s world, the more we are able to live our lives in bold faith and pursuit of making disciples of all men.

The first concern I want to address is the assertion that it would be very difficult to fit and care for pairs of 7,000 kinds of animals on the Noah’s Ark. First of all, recent scientific discoveries in the Christian Science community have narrowed down the major “kinds” of animals to between 2,000-3,000, not 7,000. This would mean that about 4,000-6,000 animals occupied the Ark. I want to provide a valuable and very detailed resource article written by John Woodmorappe (B.A. and M.A. in Geology and a B.A. in Biology) to address the particulars of this concern. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/how-could-animals-fit-on-ark

The next issue related to Noah’s Ark that Bill Nye brought up was, “how did millions of species arise from a few thousand “kinds” of animals on the Ark?” This question describes an immediate inaccuracy in relation to animals on the Ark. Bill fails to realize that only land vertebrates occupied the Ark. Of the land vertebrates, there are only around 33,000 named living “species” (and a few thousand more fossil species). These are divided into fewer than 10,000 genera and 1,000 families. In relation to this subject Dr. Marcus Ross has underwent very valuable documented research. He is the assistant professor of geology and assistant director for the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University. He holds a Master’s Degree in Paleontology and a PhD in Geosciences from the University of Rhode Island. In this article he very easily explains the “kinds” & “species” dilemma.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n1/no-kind-left-behind

Another part of Bill Nye’s argument against Biblical integrity was that the “order in the geological column” is evidence for billions of years. Bill also asserted that radiometric dating was a viable method for dating rocks and bones at millions of years old. There is, in fact a fairly consistent order found in the fossil record, but this vague order also contains quite a large quantity of random placement of various fossils. There also have been no verifiable transitional fossils found in the geological column (if evolution has been happening for millions of years, there should be hundreds of thousands if not millions of "transitional fossils"). Dr. Andrew Snelling PhD is one of several scientists who have documented work on the order in the geological column in relation to Noah’s flood and it accurately defends Biblical history. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/order-fossil-record#fnMark_1_2_1.  In regards to radio-metric dating scientists still have wildly sporadic & unpredictable results. Radio-metric dating is based on several very pivotal assumptions that cannot ever be proven or observed scientifically. The Institute for Creation Research recently had great levels of success in regard to clarifying the gross inaccuracy of radiometric dating. This article along with many others explains the problem with using radioisotopes to date fossils:  http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray

The last argument that I want to address which Bill Nye brought up several times during the debate (of which Ken Ham had already given him a detailed answer) is the argument that the creation science model is unable to make “scientific predictions.” As a matter of fact multiple predictions have been made and confirmed within the creation science model over the years and it continues to build tremendous momentum (it’s based on God’s Word!). Click this link to see a list of Creation Science Predictions:http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions 

Due to the length of these topics and the limited time given to Bill & Ken during the debate, none of these concerns were able to be adequately addressed in a lengthy explanation. I believe that the debate was done in such a way that neither Bill nor Ken can be deemed “the winner” because both stated their case with Excellency. However, I do believe this debate was a win for Christianity because it allowed us to have a public opportunity to give verifiable evidence which supports the truth of scripture, and over 3 million people tuned in! It’s important to understand that despite the recent “hype” surrounding evolution, God’s Word has yet to be disproven, and never will be. The heavens and the earth will pass away, but His word will last forever! (Luke 21:33)
Written by: Kyle Bailey (see links for additional reference material on this topic)

For more inspirational content SUBSCRIBE to my YouTube channel.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Israel, Gaza, and the Church- How should we respond?

Daniel 12:1- "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book." The only Nation in the Bible that has an Archangel from Heaven appointed for its protection is the Nation of Israel. This reality reminds us of the extent to which God has gone in order to ensure that His covenant promises to the Jewish people are fulfilled, and also that the conflicts we are seeing in the earthly realm originate in the spiritual realm. God’s unwavering commitment to preserve the Jewish people is not based upon their “deeds of righteousness” but rather upon His covenant promises given to their forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, we must understand that there is a war in the spiritual realm against the covenant promises of God that is manifesting in

The Storm on Your Phone: learning to fix our eyes on Jesus in the age of social media.

Matthew‬ ‭14:25‭-‬31‬ ‭NIV‬- “[25] Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. [26] When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. [27] But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” [28] “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.” [29] “Come,” he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. [30] But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” [31] Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” During one of the most climactic moments of Jesus' ministry, the Apostle Peter demonstrated a dazzling expression of faith and power. Moments after stepping on to the water, his courageous efforts fizzled in defeat. He found himself in a dangerous duel with the depths of the sea. What was it tha

A Review of: "Calvinism, Arminianism & The Word of God: A Calvary Chapel Perspective" By: Chuck Smith

Recently a Pastor friend of mine shared with me an article written by the founder of the Calvary Chapel Denomination Chuck Smith. It was written with the intention of addressing the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue for all of the Calvary Chapel Churches. To see the article CLICK HERE . First of all I like the format of the paper in which he clearly set out to address both views and then clarify the Calvary Chapel stance. A couple of things that I noticed I want to point out below: Overall he did a fair job conveying the Arminian view, however I am not sure why he seemed to be confused on a couple of things he said. Over the year Arminius’ beliefs have been misrepresented and demonized by Calvinists so I can see why he made a few false assumptions regarding their beliefs. 1. He stated, “Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.” This is actually a descript