Nuances Missed in Debate over Creationism


Re: lt’s Science Guy vs. creationist, Feb. 4

Despite the debate’s hype, it failed to deliver.

Although Bill Nye is a gifted science educator for children and Ken Ham a well-meaning Christian, the debate seemed counterproductive. It pitted Christian fundamentalism on one side and atheistic materialism on the other, while ignoring all the more nuanced positions between these two polar opposites.

It should be pointed out that, in order to be a Christian, one need not accept a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis or a young earth. However, the debate was fixated on the age of the earth and universe. Nye provided some good arguments for accepting a universe and earth of billions of years, whereas Ham missed his opportunity to discuss and provide evidence for the various signposts to the design of the universe itself, the laws of physics and chemistry, the first self-replicating system, consciousness, and other such indicators.

Ironically, it was Nye defending big bang cosmology, one of the most compelling arguments for design and creation. Mr. Ham did make a couple of valid points though, namely that one need not necessarily be an evolutionist to be a good scientist and that the term “evolution,” which has at least six viable different meanings, is often conflated. These two represent extremely narrow views in terms of the science-religion debates. Neither seem to have been keeping up with advancements in science, philosophy, or developments in the science-theology dialogue.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 1 GB. You can upload: image. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here