So I watched a little more than half the debate last night between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. I wasn’t impressed by anything other than the venue. The decorators at the Creation Museum did an awesome job. Really slick design (no pun intended)!
As far as the debate went, Ham spoke about worldviews, presuppositions, and the authority of Scripture, which was all good and should have been spoken about. The problem is that he didn’t take it far enough. Instead he focused on this dichotomy between “historical science” and “observational science,” saying that we can’t observe the past so there’s an element of faith in everyone’s idea of origins, even the evolutionist’s. Nye pointed out that astronomers observe the past all the time.
Twitter was ablaze with Ham haters and folks fawning all over Nye, but Nye wasn’t very impressive either, if I’m being honest. He kept speaking about “those of us on the outside” as if the folks who believe that everything came into being through something other than God are in the know while everyone who believes in creation are simpletons. It was condescending to say the least. He also employed a few unfunny jokes in his presentations. Folks on Twitter thought that no one laughed because the crowd was full of hostile creationists. Did they ever consider that the jokes bombed because they just weren’t funny?
In the end, if I had to give one of them the advantage based on what I saw, I’d give it to Nye. He kept bringing up pieces of evidence that he believes support his position. Ham kept referring to science PhDs who believed in creation and his historical/observational dichotomy while dancing around Nye’s arguments. I think Ham’s debates are better when he’s debating fellow believers because then the text of Scripture, which both debaters hold to be authoritative, can be engaged with more depth and seriousness.
It’s raining outside and it’s cold. That means the rain is freezing. Great. Should make for an excruciatingly slow commute. God, why must you continue to punish the people of New Jersey with this weather? Why?!!
I’ve got quite a few posts in my draft folder that I’d like to finish up. One is a review of William Hasker’s Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God that is nearly complete. I’m going to have to go back and reread the conclusion of the book so that I can put the finishing touches on it, but Lord willing, I’ll get it done today! Pray for me! In addition to that, I began a series 6 months (!) ago in which I responded to recent reviews of Chris Tilling’s monograph Paul’s Divine Christology. The first 3 posts were in response to Matthew Novenson’s review in the Expository Times. I plan to continue the series (soon I hope!) with a look at Nijay K. Gupta’s review in The Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters.