The question posed in Tuesday night's showdown between Bill Nye and Ken Ham was, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” But what if only one of the two was debating that question? What if the other was representing something completely different than his opponent, and most of the audience, thought he was debating?
It's true. Ken Ham wasn't there to talk about creationism. He said so himself.
The day after the debate, my curiosity about the creationist Christian perspective on the evening led me to my friends at WorldNetDaily for insight. They delivered, with the gleeful headline, "CREATION SMACKDOWN DRAWS MASSIVE AUDIENCE"
The article, by Alyssa Farah, is subtitled 'Science guy' admits he doesn't know how key factor came to be'. Disregarding the fuzzy math between 800,000 and "massive," it offers a glimpse into the extreme right's worldview that worth a closer look as progressive activists. More below the word fossil.
If not creationism, what was Ken Ham debating? In an interview with WND a week before the debate, here it is in his own words (emphasis mine)
The arguments really will be about the “battle of world views, secular humanism and the Christian world view,” Ham told WND in an interview Wednesday.Ken Ham wasn't debating the origins of life and the universe. He was there to represent what he calls a Christian world view. He was clear on this relatively early in the debate. At approximately 36:00, he says: (my transcription, his plurals)
“I think it’s all come together at this time … and is seen by a lot of people not just as evolution vs. creation, but really more a battle of secular philosophy vs. conservative Christianity.”
He said the battle is playing out in many ways today – in textbooks that promote evolution, in the banning of anything “Christian” in public Christmas displays, in what children can say in schools and in what local governments can allow on public land.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/...
We all have the same Grand Canyon ... We all have the same evidences. It's not the evidences that are different. It's a battle over the same evidence in regard to how we interpret the past, and you know why that is? Because it's really a battle over world views and starting points. It's a battle over the philosophical world views and starting points but the same evidence.The accompanying slide:
Now I admit that my starting point is that God is the ultimate authority. If someone doesn't accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority. And that's really the difference, when it comes down to it.
The best way to define a worldview is "simply how you see the world". If you were to put on a pair of glasses that had "blue lenses" everything you see would be "blue". If you were to put on a pair of glasses that had "green lenses" everything you see would be "green".Did he just say everyone who doesn't have a biblical worldview is an atheist? Yes, he did. This kind of linear, black and white thinking is why guys like Ken Ham don't respond to science and reason. Their worldview is based on willful denial of science and nature in favor of a Divine Creator.
The same is true for a worldview. In a biblical worldview, everything you see should be viewed through the Word of God. If you have an atheistic worldview (one that does not include God) you will seek to develop an answer for every situation, issue or problem that does not include God. For example, an atheistic worldview does not allow for creation because there is no God. From their perspective, the world came to be out of naturalistic causes, not because God created it. If you are coming from an atheistic worldview, you will do everything in your power to promote your view and discredit your opponent’s view.
There are basically two world views.
The center piece of a biblical worldview is God, while the center piece of an atheistic worldview is nature and man. A biblical worldview has it’s entire focus on God, while an atheistic worldview does everything in its power to be sure God is not a part of the world.
Let's go back to the WND article, which continues,
In perhaps the most compelling moment of the debate, Nye and Ham were confronted with the question. “How did consciousness come from matter?”Note the very first line of the article.
Nye replied bluntly with, “I don’t know. That is a great mystery.”
“Bill, I want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from,” Ham said, referring to the Bible, and adding that he believes man was created “in God’s image.”
Those three words are as anathema to Ken Ham's worldview as they are fundamental to Bill Nye's, mine, and probably yours. Isn't I Don't Know the foundation of the scientific method? We recognize that we don't know, which is why we value evidence and process in discovering truth.
Ken Ham's worldview is the polar opposite. It values I know for sure over I don't know. Here's his slide summarizing the origin of races and cultures. It makes no scientific or logical sense, but it satisfies the biblical world view's need to know for sure -- literally, chapter and verse.
Ham said when he was younger, atheists were ardent secularists but allowed Christians to believe the way they chose.Ah, yes, the good old days. Happy Friday, and be careful out there. Because cold, and ice, and aggressive atheists.
“These days, you’re finding them more aggressive, not against just creationism, but against people who believe in God. They call the Bible an outdated book. God is an ogre, if there is a God,” he said. “There’s all sorts of statements and name-calling.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/...