Bill Nye v Ken Ham

Question: Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?

Good debate.  :-)

A note on my own view:

1) I believe the fall of Adam and Eve occurred approximately 6,000 years ago.  Based on the text of Genesis 1-3, we do not know how long they lived before they were corrupted by sin.  We don’t know how much time passed between Adam’s creation and the fall.

Was Adam’s age at death calculated from his creation… or was it calculated from the moment he began to die?  As the question can’t be answered with evidence from the text we don’t know.  I lean toward and I think it is reasonable to conclude that his age was calculated from the moment he lost his immortality.

2) Genesis 1 states that God created the heavens and the earth.  And then in verse 2, God began the six days of creation.  When God began the six days of creation the planet and water were already in existence.

We do not know how much time passed during verse 1, nor do we know how much time passed between verse 1 and 2.  We do not know how long the pre-creation Earth existed before God began His work.  The Earth was formless and void like a canvas waiting for its painter.

3) As to the star light issue.  God exists outside time and could have ignited those stars in the distant past so that their light reached the earth at the time of the days of creation.  By the text saying that God created the stars, that doesn’t mean that He couldn’t have reached back in time at that moment etc.  Time is relative as well.

Conclusion #1:  I believe the corruption and fall of man into sin occurred approximately 6,000 years ago, and we do not know how much time passed prior to that event.

Conclusion #2: Observable, applicable science should be taught in the classroom to students.  Unobservable, unproven science philosophy (such as macro evolution) should be taught in a separate philosophy class where creation and evolution could both be taught and  clash all day.

Note #1: When any philosophy, in this case unprovable scientific philosophy (macro evolution) that completely contradicts and denies another unprovable philosophy in this case intelligent design (God, aliens, transdimensional beings etc… whomever it might be) should not be taught as “scientific truth” in the science classroom.

It isn’t the observable science that separates Evolutionists and Creationists (some interpretation of the data differs yes).  It is the unprovable philosophical framework on both sides of the fence.

Note #2: Bill Nye seems to think that if people believe in Creationism that suddenly no one will want to discover or invent and we’ll all go back to being ignorant, superstitious, and backward living in the dark ages.  That is a completely ridiculous idea.  I’d like to remind him it was the Christian scientists of Europe who wanted to study God’s creation that began the whole mindset of scientific discovery in the west.

About Daniel Silas
This entry was posted in Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.