A couple of days ago, a tweet from Jacob Lupfer caught my attention:
If the MSM picks it up, this Ham/Nye debate could be Scopes-esque, but for the 21st c.: Ratings, clicks, page views. No minds will change.
— Jacob Lupfer (@jlupf) January 7, 2014
While I disagree with Lupfer on several other issues, I found this comment to be quite insightful. Perhaps it would be best to look at the subject that we’re talking about first.
The Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY will host a public debate on February 4 between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. They will argue the question, “Is creation a viable model of origins?” Ken Ham is the high profile leader of the Answers in Genesis (AiG) ministry, which seeks to promote and defend a young creationist approach to origins science. AiG founded and runs the Creation Museum and remains a popular source for literalistic interpretations of the Genesis creation account in the Bible. Bill Nye is famous for his 1990s PBS “Bill Nye the Science Guy” television program as well as his continued advocacy for scientific inquiry among young people. Perhaps because of his skeptical bent and commitment to scientific progress, Nye claimed in 2012 that creationism was not appropriate for children. Both men lack doctoral degrees. But Nye has a background in mechanical engineering, and Ham in environmental biology. Ham and Nye are both popularizers and educators of a sort—they distribute the research and claims of others to a wider audience.
With such popular featured contestants, the event has been fully booked and received some significant press. Already, people are predicting the quality of the debate’s content—which gets us back to Lupfer’s original observation. People are not coming into the event with the mindset of “I will keep my mind open and may very well change it after hearing these arguments.” Young earth creationists have chosen Ham to win, especially since he’s on his home turf surrounded by a supportive audience. “Finally, people will hear what we’ve been trying to say,” they often declare. One might question if this would qualify as “fighting fair.” On the other hand, the other party looks forward to openly mocking the creationists. Some of the creationists will come off as backwards (in orientation to the present scientific consensus) while the creationists may have their worst anxieties confirmed by the evolutionists’ attitude of “I’ll bowl you over in the name of scientific progress.”
Indeed, the question itself lacks some focus; it remains open-ended. Contemporary scientific dialogue generally requires specific cases that provide substantial evidence for a hypothesis: not so with this debate. What evolutionary thinkers will be addressed? Darwin surely, but what about Cuvier, Agassiz, Galton, Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, and a whole host of others? How much will biblical hermeneutics play into the discussion, and does Nye have working knowledge of that realm? With such a broad question, will the issue be tackled philosophically, with a discussion of causation and teleology? These are the kinds of nagging questions that combine with the aforementioned star power to create a large viewership. James Hoskins over at Christ and Pop Culture has diagnosed this as a “spectacle.” “Ratings, clicks, and page views” indeed.
There are several distinctives that may prevent the Ham/Nye debate from becoming a full “Scopes 2.0” (and I think Lupfer might agree with my characterizations here). First, this is not a court case. Second, while Ham and Nye certainly have star power, they are dwarfed by the titanic clash that was Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. The former was a hotshot lawyer for the ACLU. The latter was a three time presidential candidate, retired Representative to Congress, and former Secretary of State. Third, the narrative of the Ham/Nye debate will be much less controlled and much more open to popular interpretation. In the case of the Scope Trial, mainstream reporters for news agencies attended the event. The sarcastic, hilarious, and irreligious H. L. Mencken provided the strongest and most memorable narrative with his colorful terminology, even if he lacked objectivity (he paid part of Scopes defense against Bryan’s prosecution). In short, both sides will witness the event as it happens and may leave quite satisfied with their own party line.
This leads directly to the fourth point: the Creation Museum event won’t cause seismic cultural shifts like the Scopes Trial. When Darrow made a fool out of Bryan on the stand at the seventh day of trial and as the news reports piled in, the elite opinion shifted increasingly towards Darwinian evolution. Meanwhile, the Fundamentalists took their bat and ball home with them. Conservative American Christians would not play the cultural engagement game anymore to be mocked upon the public scaffold. Fundamentalists retreated from social prominence until the Neo-Evangelical movement led by Ockenga and others pushed for a renewed public witness by Protestants with literal biblical convictions. In fact, AiG was formed at least in part as a continued, devoted reaction against the scientific and social backlash catalyzed by the Scopes kerfuffle.
The Scopes Trial may be one of the top five most important events in American religious history for the 20th century. On the other hand, despite its good intentions, the Ham/Nye debate is set to be just another blip on the culture war radar. There are organizations and spokespeople on both sides prepared to deal with any overly adverse fallout from the debate itself. The contest will be a more predictable piece of edutainment with well-organized, well-funded structures prepared for the aftershocks, not a 1920s America shocked by a disconnect between the scientific establishment and the common populace. It is ours to ask which is better for the Church and for culture.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on January 15, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I hope I’m wrong because Ham’s heart is probably in the right place, but I think Nye will make him look bad. Very hard to square a 6000-year-old earth with modern science, or, for that matter, what some legendary Christian Saints (like Augustine) have said about Genesis.
Comment by Daniel on January 15, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Isn’t anybody advocating for old-earth creationism? I cannot seriously believe that even the most ardent scriptural literalists really believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Why would God create a fossil record that appears ancient, but is really only 6,000 years old? Do young earth creationists claim that carbon isotope dating is a mirage if it yields an age older than 6,000 years?
Since I cannot claim to have studied young earth creationism, how do they explain the age of the universe? Wouldn’t you have to completely discount Einstein’s theory of special relativity and the distance of galaxies to have a “young” universe. Is seems like an awful lot of work for God to create “fake” physical evidence that indicates an old earth and a universe at least 10 billion years old.
Comment by Earl H. Foote on January 15, 2014 at 4:50 pm
First, I agree with Daniel. The “young earth” hypothesis is contradicted by a boatload of scientific evidence. Second, this whole debate seems to be “apples and oranges” to me. Yes, a loving God with a will and a purpose created the universe. How He did it is less my concern than the fact that I am here because of God’s love. While there are some flaws in the theory of evolution–and it can never adequately explain the entire creation of the universe–it successfully predicts and explains how species evolve. This is all we need for the scientific aspect. How things happen is a question science answers. Why things happen is a question religion answers.
Comment by Andrew Orlovsky on January 15, 2014 at 6:46 pm
At least Ham is finally debating an atheist rather than simply taking pot shots at fellow Bible Believing Christians like Hugh Ross. My prediction is Nye will win the debate by pointing out the silliness of the young earth position. The mainstream media will celebrate, and hope very little Americans know that old earth creationists (Ross, William Lane Criag, Jack Collins) who believe in biblical inerrantcy even exist
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on January 15, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Quite true. Have Nye debate someone like William Lane Craig or John Lennox and the arrogant Nye would be in over his head rather quickly.
The mainstream media couldn’t handle this. It’s a parlor game for these self-styled illuminati to take pot shots at “religious fundamentalists”…which, in their minds, includes anyone who takes the Bible seriously.
Grappling with the following is above the media’s intellectual pay-grade and, more importantly, just doesn’t fit the narrative: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s8
Comment by Philip on January 16, 2014 at 9:03 am
Is Bill Nye an atheist? I’d never heard that.
Comment by Andrew Orlovsky on January 16, 2014 at 11:17 am
Maybe he considers himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, but either way, he’s definitely hostile to religious faith and closer in worldview to Richard Dawkins rather than Francis Collins.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on January 16, 2014 at 11:32 am
I could find no reference to Nye’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on his website, Wiki, or a couple of other sites. That’s unusual. Wiki often will report the religious affiliation of famous people. To NOT report it would seem to take some effort. Interesting.
It appears Nye is a member of a humanist organization so it’s probably safe to assume he’s an atheist, or at least an agnostic. However, he is a big believer in “Global Warmism,” which has many characteristics of religion.
Nye holds only an undergraduate degree in engineering, having not earned a doctorate in any discipline (as noted in the above article.)
Nye is also a partisan: he endorsed Barack Obama for re-election in 2012. The notion that he is an apolitical objectivist–the usual media narrative–is ludicrous.
Comment by Philip on January 16, 2014 at 12:10 pm
I don’t see how his voting patterns have any baring on his abilities or qualifications to discuss science. Also I don’t see how, what did you call it, “global warmism” (seriously?) mimics religion. Explain.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on January 16, 2014 at 12:28 pm
His voting patterns may not impair his ability to discuss science, but this goes further: his eagerness to enter the political fray and endorse a particular candidate–something many serious scientists consider inadvisable, since it is outside their expertise and may lead to political prejudice–does say something about Mr. Nye’s willingness or capacity to fairly and objectively assess issues generally.
As for “Global Warmism,” it’s been shown that the earth has not warmed for at least 17 years and that there are probably many more factors involved that we haven’t even discovered yet. There has been some marginal warming over the past 100+ years that has coincided with increased carbon emissions, but the belief that humans, unequivocably, are the main if not exclusive cause of this is unproven and often promoted with evangelistic zeal by leftist devotees: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/
Comment by gary on January 15, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Aa a geologist of approximately 35 years and a more recent convert from agnostic to believer (past 15 years) I have always had a problem with the young earth concept. I do like to hear the arguments from the young earth guys though. But I really agree with Earl – a loving God created all of this.
Comment by Joren on January 15, 2014 at 7:13 pm
Having a degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I can say without fear of report that science has still yet to prove that the carbon half life does not accelerate under different environmental conditions. Scientists found an “artifact” and carbon dated it to over thousands of years old when in fact it was a boot fragment from the 20th century. Science does not prove anything but merely gives a possibility to what it can do. And science is forever “evolving” so our information of carbon dating that we so heavily rely on could in fact be false. Studying the human body and learning how many different possible folds a single protein can go under to obtain a quaternary structure that is viable and how long it would take by random trial and error in itself proves that they would not be able to spontaneously make a viable being. Every organelle in the human body was designed to fit a specific purpose for all of eternity. That doesn’t change. However a being can adapt to a new climate. That is not the same thing as evolution. One last note. If God created man in his image and is powerful enough to create any matter from air, why would he take hundreds of millions of years for trial and error? Isn’t he Omnipotent? If you believe the word of God then you can’t say he didn’t know exactly what he was doing when he created life. If you don’t believe the bible then do the research on the hundreds of different systems in the human body that would not be possible if there was a system of trial and error. In some systems trial and error would mean the difference between life or death. I just ask that people do their research both biblically and scientifically before making claims they know nothing about. Evolution is a theory and nothing more.
Comment by Joshua Alexander on January 15, 2014 at 11:10 pm
“Darrow made a fool out of Bryan on the stand at the seventh day of trial?”
Are you thinking of the actual historical trial itself, or “Inherit The Wind?” The actual trial transcript seems to reveal a different story.
Other than that, I agree, and wish that everyone wasn’t making such a big deal out of it.
Comment by Philip on January 16, 2014 at 8:59 am
This whole debate rests on a false assumption, which is that “creation” always means “creationism”. Evolution only challenges a literalist understanding of Genesis that insists all life forms originated as they exist now and that creation took place over a literal six day period. Many Christians find no trouble reconciling their beliefs in a divine creator with modern evolutionary science. It would be nice if creationists acknowledged that they don’t have a monopoly on Christianity for once.
Comment by Donnie on January 16, 2014 at 9:36 am
I never bought the Christian evolutionist argument. It basically suggests that God wasn’t powerful enough to create creatures as is, so he had to rely on evolution to correct it.
Comment by Philip on January 16, 2014 at 12:15 pm
No it doesn’t. It simply argues that based upon the evidence before us, God chose to diversify and expand life progressively rather than instantaneously. You’re the one who making claims about the limits of God’s power, not us. Frankly I would think a God who’s creative act is ongoing and expanding would be the best possible challenge to the old “clock-maker” god of the deists who’s detached and uninvolved in the world He created. For the evolutionary Christian such a detached deity is impossible.
Comment by Mark on January 28, 2014 at 7:46 pm
An issue with theistic evolution that I can’t seem to get my “noodle” around is the evolutionary mechanism’s apparent contradiction with sin being the cause of death. That is, if sin is the cause of death and a theistic evolutionary model requires millions of years of death to evolve the first man (another issue in itself – how to classify the first “man”), how do theistic evolutionists reconcile this conundrum? I’m not asking to provoke you but merely because it seems as though you might have a theistic evolutionary stance and I would like to hear from someone with such a view regarding this issue. Thanks.
Comment by Philip on January 30, 2014 at 9:08 am
Well my understanding of “death” which is caused by sin is the same as the “death” Jesus conquered on the Cross and offers humanity freedom from. So I interpret the punishment in Genesis as the removal of God’s immediate presence from man and the threat of damnation being placed upon all of us. This is the death we received in the Fall. All creatures live and die and have for eons, but I don’t think it’s because we or all of them sinned at some point. What we lost by sinning and what Jesus offers us is the promise of eternal life in the Kingdom of God. Obviously, we continue to die in this world in the purely scientific sense, but we are promised a place in the Kingdom. I don’t think evolution directly challenges any of this.
Comment by theenemyhatesclarity on January 16, 2014 at 11:53 am
2 points:
1. In the most recent issue of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham specifically notes that “young earth creationism” is not a salvation issue. I am still trying to resolve the young earth/old earth question, but I would urge the truly serious to read what Mr. Ham has written.
2. The debate issue is not young earth/old earth, but instead is “is creation a viable model of origins.” Young earth and old earth proponents are on the same side. If Ham is a good debater, and keeps the focus on the specific issue, he should “win” hands down.”
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
Comment by Philip on January 16, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Is there room in Ham’s model for a view of creation that allows for evolution?
Comment by Paul Hoskins on January 17, 2014 at 5:41 pm
J. Gresham Machen published his classic book Christianity and Liberalism in 1923. He saw Christianity and liberalism as being two separate religions, one of the core differences being that the Christian saw creation as being an act of God, while the liberal did not. Machen took the view that the six-day creationist and the theistic evolutionist were on the same team, whatever their differences, since they believed that “In the beginning, God created.”
Comment by Jim Fedako on January 27, 2014 at 3:57 pm
“When Darrow made a fool out of Bryan on the stand at the seventh day of trial and as the news reports piled in, the elite opinion shifted increasingly towards Darwinian evolution.”
By writing that, I assume you never read the full transcript of the trial.
Comment by walt on February 5, 2014 at 6:36 pm
there is a tremendous amount of evidence for a young earth just look up web sites such as 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults or some of the 100s other such web sites or other sources.Some of these sources are written by people far more competent than Nye or Ham.