This blog post is going to be mostly a reaction to the debate shown above. I found this debate very interesting, and learned a lot of things along the way. One of the big themes that kept recurring during this debate was the definition of science, specifically in terms of historical vs. observational science. Ken Ham repeatedly made the point that all observational science is the same, and that we all have the same evidence. However, since we were not physically present in the past, it is not fair to assume what happened. Bill Nye argued that because the laws of nature are the same, we have evidence to prove things about the past, such as the age of the Earth.
I personally tend to lean more toward the idea that the Earth is billions of years old rather than only six thousand or so. The reason for this is because it works in both world views. The Bible cannot always be taken literally, so when it says God created the Earth in seven days, each day could easily be millions of years. There really isn’t any evidence to support the idea of a young Earth. However, I found it interesting that Ham called out 90% of the carbon dating methods as contradicting a billion year old Earth. At the end of the day, we just won’t know the answer.
I found it interesting that during the question and answer section, there were two consecutive questions for Bill Nye in which he answered straight up “I don’t know.” Those questions were along the lines of “what came before atoms” and “where did consciousness come from.” This is essentially asking how the origin of the universe came about and how human life was created. Ken Ham easily answered this by referencing the Bible, but Nye responded with something that most people who criticize Christianity think: How reliable is a book that was written centuries ago and translated into American English?
In regards to the creation of the universe, I tend to lean toward the idea that there had to be some sort of higher being or creator to set the universe in motion. It was brought up that we can’t discount the possibility that nothing could create something, but it seems highly unlikely based on science as we know it. At the end of the day, I ultimately fall somewhere in the middle of these world views. How could there be an Almighty God with so much evil and corruption in the world? How could we exist if there wasn’t something before us to create us? These are questions that we are always seeking to answer, and Bill Nye repeatedly made the indisputable point that it is critical to continue to develop young engineers and scientists so that we can keep getting closer to this answer.
Of course, there was much more discussed in this debate, and I would encourage you to watch it if you haven’t already.
Thanks to everyone who read this post. Please like the post if you enjoyed reading, comment if you have feedback, and share with others.