Bill Nye the science guy debated Ken Ham the Bible guy about whether the Biblical creation position is a viable science model in today’s world of modern science. Nye immediately went on the attack to reword the question to make the debate about Ken Ham’s Bible creation model.

Ham did a great job in his opening remarks to address anticipated criticisms such as distinguishing between historical science and observational science, are there scientists who believe in Biblical creation, can and have creationists contributed to science and technology, and can the Biblical creation model make scientific predictions. Most importantly, Ham presented testimonies of scientists who believe in Biblical creation. In other words, yes, it is possible to believe in Biblical creation and be a scientist in today’s modern world. Ham achieved his goal and successfully answered the debate question.

Nye’s opening remarks were failed attempts to spin the debate as science versus Ken Ham’s model, to challenge Ham’s definitions of historical and observational science, and to warn the audience that creation science threatens technological advancement and the U.S. economy. He also failed to respond to the presence of scientists contributing to modern science today who are believers in Biblical creation. This failure was probably due to the fact that Bible believers are in science today and do contribute to America’s leadership in science and technology and to America’s economic well-being. To Nye’s credit, he did a good job of listing important questions that naturalists have about Biblical claims. But as Ham humorously pointed out, if he attempted to answer all of the questions, it would take a million years.

Nye misrepresented creation scientists as rejecting the importance of natural laws and the role of laws in predictability. He cited the TV series of CSI as an example of how science works with the implication that creationists reject such a scientific approach. Ham pointed out Nye’s misrepresentation and repeated his opening remarks again that creationists do use the natural laws that God made in creation to explain creation. In fact, Ham had just presented the testimonies of respectable scientists who believe in Biblical creation. Nye was stuck on his script and over looked that important point. He failed to address the fact that Ham had just successfully answered the debate question with testimonies of believers in Biblical creation who are scientists contributing to the science and technology of today’s world. Yes, Bible believing scientists obviously respect and apply the natural laws of creation to make discoveries, to explain creation, and to apply discovered information. Bible believing scientists are contributing to modern science every day. In fact, they are a vital part of modern science and today’s economy. At this point, Nye lost the debate.

Instead, with the images and words of Bible believing scientists fresh in the audiences’ minds, Nye made a futile attempt to assert with words that Bible believers ignore natural laws and are not scientists. But he failed to explain the successful contributions to science and technology by Bible believing scientists in the world today. Ham succeeded in driving his debate point home by showing video testimonies of Bible believing scientists. Nye was at a loss here and pressed forward with his agenda hoping that if he ignored these scientists that the audience also would ignore them. It was the testimonies of Bible believing scientists in today’s modern world of science versus the rhetoric of Nye. No wonder Nye spent the evening trying to reword the debate question to be about Ham’s model. It was an attempt to divide and conquer. Obviously, Nye knew he could not make his point while facing off with Ham in the presence of Bible believing scientists. All Nye could do at this point was resort to rhetoric hoping that the audience would forget the presence of Bible believing scientists and to make the debate about Ham.

Ham won the debate by answering the debate question with the testimonies of Bible believing scientists. It was to his advantage that he showed video of these scientists speaking to the audience rather than quote them.

The remainder of the debate was in the details. Nye asked for an explanation for a list of important questions that he had about Biblical claims. Ham demonstrated that the Bible did have answers to those questions. Nye and many others were hoping to hear explanations that conformed to the naturalists’ expectations. But Ham answered Nye’s questions with quotes from the Bible. The point was that the Bible does answer Nye’s questions. Invoking revelation and the supernatural may not satisfy the naturalist, but it is an answer. Ham told the audience to read articles at the Answers in Genesis web site for technical answers. Readers will find that belief in the Bible and the supernatural does not exclude application of natural laws. Representing naturalists, Nye said that they did not have answers to several of the questions ask of him in the debate, which left many dissatisfied with his answers. Ham was quick to point out to Nye that there is a book with answers.

In attempting to recover credibility for the lack of answers, Nye made the point that naturalists are compelled to search for natural explanations of that which is unknown today. It was at this point the debate became confusing to many. Nye made his point that science is about offering natural explanations rather than accepting revelation. But Ham made his point that explanation without observation is merely interpretation. Explanation is not evidence. And explanation by revelation or by human imagination are both interpretations.

Nye was at a loss here and spoke of being unsettled and troubled. His confusion is the result of failing to understand Ham’s opening remarks where he carefully defined his terms. Ham made clear that observational science is that which is repeatable for observation today. Historical science is not repeatable for observation. Ken Ham is famous for asking in his lectures, “Were you there?” Nye failed to grasp this important distinction between explaining what is observable today and explaining what was not observed in the past. Ham’s point is that if the explanation for an event was not observed, then how can we know for sure that explanation is correct? The answer is obvious, we can’t know for sure.

Thus the observable present versus the unobservable past became the ending issue of the debate. Discoveries in the earth’s crust clearly show that things in the past do not occur today. Today’s events do not explain the past. But the naturalist attempts to connect the present with the past with the laws of today. The problem is that it fails to make a good connection. As Nye said, naturalists cannot answer all the questions. But for the naturalist, explanation is the connection and what makes their conclusions credible. And their hope of explaining all questions within a naturalist framework compels them to discover more. This is commendable. But the lack of a complete explanation is what compels many to reject their claims. And because explanation is the evidence for naturalism, the lack of explanation for many questions is its lack of evidence and credibility. But the more serious strike against their position is that naturalists confuse and substitute explanation for observable evidence.

As Ham pointed out, explanation is not the same as observation. Explanation is an interpretation not evidence. This is why the naturalist explanation of the past does not satisfy many. Explanations of the unobserved past cannot be proven true. This is the uncertainty introduced in historical science. Can the naturalist say with certainty that it happened their way? No. All they can say is that it is to them the most satisfying explanation. This is why naturalists cannot eliminate alternative explanations.

For Bible believers, discoveries in the earth’s crust show that events in the past were much different than today’s events. In fact, the natural laws of today do not explain the past. Therefore, revelation of the Bible is considered reasonable, which introduces the supernatural. Naturalists argue that this is a cop out. But their explanations are insufficient, and their cop out is to say that they do not know enough to explain. At the very least, naturalists should admit that an evolutionary interpretation of the past is not provable and should not be taught as fact. However, they fail to acknowledge that an explanation of an unobserved past will always be uncertain. This is their personal preference. This is their opinion of how to best interpret the world. For Bible believers, they have their revelation. The naturalists cannot explain the past with observations of today, and Bible believers cannot explain without the supernatural. So, which is correct?

Ham successfully answered the debate question and won the debate. The Biblical model of creation is viable for the modern world. Bible believing scientists contribute to science and technology today and are good for the economy. The Biblical explanation for the unobserved past does not interfere with the science of today.