Two authors recently weighed in on my recent debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy”—and they’ve challenged my statement during the debate that I wouldn’t change my mind about the truth of God’s Word.
Dr. Peter Boghossian and Dr. James Lindsay contributed an article to the Richard Dawkins Foundation website. Their title claims, “Ken Ham Couldn’t Pull a Precambrian Rabbit from His Hat.”
Now, to explain their article’s title, the authors write that when biologists are asked what they’d need to convince them that evolutionary ideas are not true, “biologists typically reply, ‘A Precambrian rabbit.’” According to evolutionists, rabbits would have appeared much later than the Precambrian, so the discovery of a so-called “Precambrian rabbit” would reveal serious errors in evolutionary thinking. During the Q&A session, Bill Nye and I were asked what would make us change our minds about our beliefs. These two authors believe that I made the “most telling statement of the night” when I said, “No one is ever going to convince me that the Word of God isn’t true.”
Of course, I stand behind that statement. There is no hypothetical situation where this could be true: God cannot lie, and so His Word won’t be proven false (Titus 1:2).
Evidence Is Interpreted
But Nye responded, “We would just need one piece of evidence.” But does Mr. Nye actually mean this? I would submit that he doesn’t. You see, evolutionists may claim that they “follow the evidence where it leads,” but they have a bias and an interpretation of the evidence (just like biblical creationists). Our starting points determine how we build a worldview within which we interpret the evidence of the present in relation to the past.
No matter what evidence I could give him, he would come up with his alternative interpretation. This is because, as I stated clearly in the debate, evolutionists and creationists all have the same evidence. The origins battle is not over evidence ultimately, but over how you interpret the evidence in relation to the past. As I explained (and most evolutionists reject it because they refuse to acknowledge the belief aspects of their view of origins), there is a big difference between historical and observational science.
In fact, I gave one clear piece of “evidence.” Using the evolutionists’ method of dating rocks, I gave the example of supposedly 45,000-year-old wood in supposedly 45-million-year-old rock! This is just one of the many examples you could give to show the dating methods are not reliable—they have problems because they are based on fallible assumptions.
Evolutionary Ideas Are Not Necessary to Perform Observational Science
I also think one of the most telling moments of the debate came from Mr. Nye. For a long time now, Bill Nye’s argument against biblical creation has been that students who aren’t taught evolutionary ideas will not be able to perform observational science. In a now well-known Big Think interview, Mr. Nye stated,
And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
At the debate, Nye made similar assertions. So I showed him evidence—more than “one piece of evidence,” in fact! I showed him concrete proof that biblical creationists can do great observational science. I showed video clips of scientists, including one from a biblical creationist who invented the MRI scanner. So did Bill Nye change his mind? No, he continued to argue that biblical creation harms innovation.
Who Is Willfully Ignorant?
The two authors of this article believe that I was wrong in my refusal to give up God’s Word and that Nye was reasonable to say that he’d change his mind if presented with evidence:
Ham and others, whether creationists or global warming deniers, hold the beliefs they do precisely because they refuse to revise their beliefs when presented with new data. What was on stage that night was a tragic display of willful ignorance, and with a single sentence, Ham revealed it to the world.
Well, I do believe I revealed some willful ignorance during the debate—Bill Nye’s decision to ignore problems of interpretation of evidence in relation to the past, and willful ignorance of the ability of biblical creationists to perform excellent observational science. Mr. Nye can say he’d change his mind, but he’s clearly shown he won’t. And he did not answer my challenge to explain the laws of nature and the laws of logic from his perspective of naturalism. And he clearly presupposed the Bible is not evidence—thus ignoring crucial evidence that would give him the correct understanding of the origin of the universe and life.
This is a perfect demonstration of how our worldviews affect our interpretation of the evidence in the world around us. Mr. Nye is committed to the naturalistic evolutionary worldview—so much so, that he cannot even admit that a biblical creationist can build a consistent worldview to understand the world and interpret evidence and can be just as innovative as an evolutionist. My goal in the debate was to demonstrate that the battle over origins is a clash of worldviews because of different starting points, and then to share the gospel with Nye and with the millions who viewed the debate. I did just this—outlining the worldview issues and sharing the gospel (three times!). Yet Mr. Nye continues in his unbelief and willful ignorance of the truth.
I urge you to pray for Bill Nye and for the two authors of this article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation—that they would repent and believe the gospel today, before it’s too late.
And if you have not seen the debate or the post-debate discussion, go to debatelive.org.
You can also purchase the DVD of the debate (with a free download of post-debate discussion) at our online store.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,