Disappointed in the Ham and Nye debate? The main reason expressed for the disappointment is because the Bible guy was giving the science guy Bible answers. Many felt that scientific answers should have been given to the questions posed by Nye. And yes, that would have been great. Ham could have shown the audience that the creation model is not only Biblical but solidly scientific in all of its explanations.
But Ham is all about Bible science. And there is nothing wrong with that. Ham did present scientists who are also believers in the Biblical creation model. He also gave scientific answers to some of Nye’s questions. Though many in the audience were disappointed, Ham won the debate with a slam dunk because he successfully answered the debate question, which was, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” The video interviews shown by Ham of Bible believing scientists answered the question. Yes, creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era.
Nye lost the debate. He tried to warn the audience that teaching creation in schools jeopardized our science and technology leadership in the world and our economy in the U.S. But his attack back-fired because of the interviews shown by Ham of scientists talking about their belief in Biblical creation. They were real creation scientists alive and well in science and technology representing many others who have been vital to the U.S. leadership role and successful economy. Nye’s rhetoric was contradicted by the scientists.
Nye gained sympathy with the crowd by redirecting the expectation for science answers to all of his questions though Ham had carefully spelled out in his opening remarks that this was not his goal. Ham argued from the beginning that unobservable past events must be interpreted whether by the imaginations of men or by revelation. This is why Nye countered with the science of forensics practiced on CSI. Ham’s counter point to this was that creationists do apply the scientific method and even complimented Nye on his science show to acknowledge appreciation for the science lessons.
So then, Nye presented a list of Biblical claims that he suggested lacked scientific explanation. True to his debate agenda and Biblical model, Ham cited Biblical answers rather than science answers for several of the items on Nye’s list. This of course left Nye “unsettled and troubled.” Many in the audience felt disappointed too. But the debate was not about Noah’s ark. It was whether the Biblical model was viable in modern science.
Unfortunately, Ham’s tactic suggested that Nye’s implication had merit that the Biblical model makes claims that defy scientific explanation. Ham did tell the audience that technical answers could be found in articles on the Answer in Genesis website. But Ham, to the disappointment of some in the audience,focused on Biblical quotes to answer Nye’s questions.
And this is the root of disappointment many felt after the debate. Scientific answers were asked for but not given. And they were not presented not because they do not exist but because they did not fit into Ham’s debate tactic. Ham was a success, he won the debate by answering the debate question. Nye lost. But for many, the answers not given were missed opportunities to legitimize the Biblical creation model in the naturalists’ arena of debate. In contrast, when Nye said he did not know an answer, no one was disappointed because no one expects science to have all the answers.
Disappointed expectations for scientific answers to all the questions on Nye’s list clouds the success of Ham’s debate. But he did, none the less, win. Nye lost.
Articles at Creationinsights.org have helped many understand the differences between Bible science, Creation science, and Intelligent design. With a correct understanding of how these three differ, realistic expectations for each can be accurately made and communication can be more effective. Check out other creation science web sites to find scientific answers to Biblical claims such as Creation.com and ICR.org.
