Some briefs thoughts on the Ken Ham/ Bill Nye Debate

The much-anticipated Creation/Evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham took place in Kentucky earlier this evening. If anyone was expecting that all the issues in this topic would be exhaustively covered, or that this issue would be settled once and for all by tonight’s debate — well, that didn’t happen. Nor, realistically, could it have. This topic has been argued and debated since the middle of the 19th century, and it will not be finally settled until Our Lord returns.

And it will not be settled for one very simple, but profound, reason: sinful man will always suppress the truth in his unrighteousness. And that is what we saw tonight. I don’t have time to write a long review, but I do want to share a few brief thoughts.

First, I thought Ken Ham did very well. He shared the Gospel multiple times (I think I counted 4 complete Gospel presentations, as well as numerous references to sin, the Fall, and redemption in Christ), and he stuck to his message that the true disagreement is at the presuppositional level.

Bill Nye, on the other hand, did not seem to have reviewed any of Ken Ham’s, or Answers in Genesis’, materials.  He did not actually seem to understand the position he was arguing against. He also made huge errors regarding the transmission of the Biblical text, and used his misunderstandings as the basis of many of his arguments. There was also a bit of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the Creationist position, just to see what would stick.

The format of the debate was pretty standard. And, while there was no direct cross examination period, the question and answer period, with the moderator asking questions submitted by the audience, went well. What seemed to be most lacking was the absence of closing statements to refocus each sides positions at the end.

Overall, and with the limitations of the format, I think it was a good debate, and the Biblical position was represented well by Mr. Ham. The debate has been archived at debatelive.org for several days for free viewing, and DVDs and digital downloads of the debate are for sale at the Answers in Genesis website answersingenesis.org

[Contributed by Gene Clyatt]

 

Please help maintain this site by donating here.
Facebook Comments
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. paperthinhymn says:

    1. I didn’t care for the style of debate, nor the allocated time frames. I’m a huge fan of the cross examination, which we did not get to see. In the 2.5 hours allocated. I would have preferred 30% of the time allocated to opening statements, closing statements and rebuttal, and 70% of the time allocated to cross examination. That would have been interesting and more productive.

    2. I like the slideshow. The graphics were helpful in following what can at times be a technical matter.

    3. I didn’t find any of Bill Nye’s jokes funny. Neither did anyone else, apparently.

    4. I wish there had been more challenge at the presuppositional level. I was secretly hoping that Sye Ten Bruggencate would burst through the walls like the Koolaid guy and go “Ohhhh Yeah!” and then address the many blatantly obvious moments when assumed presuppositions were being passed off as fact. I think catching him and calling him on it every time would have been helpful in understanding where this is coming from, but instead too many times it went unanswered.

    5. Thought the debate strayed at times, but I really appreciated the gospel presentations by Ken Ham. I was watching on Youtube and there were over 500,000 streamers, and that wasn’t the only place it was streaming from. The Gospel of Christ and the preaching of the word is powerful, and will reap rewards and results that we will never know about. When you have an audience that big, you give them Jesus crucified for sins and salvation, and that’s what they got.

    6. I wondered halfway through what a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Hovind would look like

    7. I thought Bill Nye would do better, or at least be more thoughtful in his objections. Instead it seemed like he was throwing out the red meat by scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to objections. His understanding of the Bible was atrocious, he couldn’t seem to understand the distinction’s Ken Ham was making to the kinds of sciences, and pretty much ignored all Ken’s explanations and clarifications. It seemed Bill Nye made a concentrated effort to purposely misunderstand him, and it irritated me.

    8. I liked the “There’s a book…called the Bible…” line

    9. Ken Ham seemed more respectful and restrained than Bill Nye. Also thought that Bill kept on bringing up points that Ken Ham already address and gave cogent, lucid answers to. Thought that was lame

  2. SLIMJIM says:

    Thank you for this review of the debate

  3. Michael Snow says:

    Neither guy is well qualified to debate the science. It was a PR event for both. And Ham adds to what the Bible says. http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/

    Here was a recent debate by real scientists.
    http://www.thegreatgoddebate.org/#.UttJFEM6H-g.facebook

  4. I don’t think it’s wise to make young earth the central issue vis-a-vis atheistic evolutionism. (I don’t know if Ham did that.) The central issue is creation itself (requiring a Creator) rather what is really the absurd proposition that everything developed by chance. Better to lay bare evolutionism’s faith in chance.

  1. February 4, 2014

    […] Clyatt made similar statements in a blog post for Pulpit and Pen: […]

  2. February 5, 2014

    […] Here is a link to a brief review of the debate. […]

  3. February 5, 2014

    […] First, I thought Ken Ham did very well. He shared the Gospel multiple times (I think I counted 4 complete Gospel presentations, as well as numerous references to sin, the Fall, and redemption in Christ), and he stuck to his message that the true disagreement is at the presuppositional level. ~JD Hall  […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: