The debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye went as many perceived it would. Both sides made their points in a civil way, rallied their base and demonstrated clearly the issues. Sadly, I think both tended to speak past each other. Ken did a solid job presenting the Christian worldview, though more scientific evidence to support that would view would have mad his case stronger. He did clearly show that one can be a creationist and make significant contributions to science. I fear that point may be missed.

Bill Nye was either ill prepared or he really didn’t care to debate the issue. Either way, what came across to me was tolerating something he disdained to push a naturalistic viewpoint. Did he argue well? Yes, and I’d submit in terms of performance he edged out Ken. However, it came across clearly that he had no concept of the worldview Ken was coming from. A reasonable man would seek to understand and then be understood. Bill operated from a caricature of a creationist not from an understanding of a creationist worldview.

Bill and Ken were even on: failing to prove their thesis, being civil and rallying their base. Nye edged out and beat Ken on performance. In terms of being prepared, Ken was clearly more ready. Over all, I think Ken won the debate as he did show the viability of creationism, though he failed to prove his thesis. I think Ken over reached with his thesis.

The reasonable man
A reasonable man is one who uses analytical thought and understands a system before critiquing it. Bill failed in this. He clearly did not have any understanding of the Bible from Ken’s perspective. His case could be more clear had he more knowledge. A reasonable man would be more attentive to his question being raised. Frequently, Bill stated that if one could offer one proof it would change the world. Ken’s evidence of the tree encased in basalt was blown off. Ken’s rebuttal answered Bill’s question, but was ignored.

No evidence
Evidence’s chances of changing Bill’s viewpoint was small at best. Given his lack of preparedness, I don’t think Bill much cared. While he did conduct himself in a civil manner, he blew off two major points Ken was making: 1) the viability of creationists 2) historical vs observational science. Bill obviously disagreed, but his point came across as trite and pigeon holed creationists as anti-science. Ken’s case clearly demonstrated the opposite. I agree Ken should have offered more scientific evidence, but I also don’t think it would matter.

Jesus first
This debate demonstrated a key point of belief for me: It’s Jesus first, then creation. I am a creationist because of Jesus. Theologically, that is true of all creationists. I’ll write on that later. A key point that is this: How do you scientifically prove a supernatural creation? Is there any proof of that? Yes, his name is Jesus. The feeding of 5,000 plus and 4,000 plus demonstrates instant control over creation & matter. It was observed, recorded and in an environment that was antagonistic to Jesus. (The crowds loved the food, but also yelled crucify him later.) There is no way to pull off those feedings as a con. Also, Jesus rose from the dead as he said he would and when he said he would. This is a recent, verifiable and proven occurrence.

Given the authenticity of Jesus, the probability that Genesis 1-11 is correct carries weight. Jesus took those accounts as literal, and given his assertions as being one with the father, he was there. It is more reasonable to trust Genesis because of Jesus than evolution with billions of years and chance. While I’ve met people who came to Jesus because of a reasoned explanation of creationism, the main thing is Jesus. The biggest weakness of creationism is they don’t focus on Jesus enough when he is verifiably the best evidence that creationism is true.

Worldview is an issue
The debate demonstrated the need for Jesus. It is important for Christians to give a reasoned defense of Scripture and to treat the Bible as a legitimate source. Ken did that very well. At the same time, we must realize we are speaking a different ‘language’ than those who are not in Christ. The Gospel will and does come across as foolishness. This is where I think Ken was more prepared than Bill. Ken understood Bill’s worldview, but Bill did not understand Ken’s. Had Bill taken the time to understand Ken’s worldview, he could have made is point better. Whether from arrogance, disdain or plain lack of being prepared I do not know, but Bill failed at a key point. For Christians, it should demonstrate that a reasoned case for something is not enough. We don’t save anyone, only God does.

Creationism is viable
Ken answered the question that creationism is viable. He gave clear examples of creationists contributing positively to science and engineering- something Bill is pleading for. Ken and Bill agree there is a need for children to pursue science and engineering. That Bill did not make this point is sad. Ken demonstrated the reasonableness of creationism based on a Christian worldview, that creationists have and are contributing positively to science and that there are significant issues with evolution. While Bill made a case and argued well, he did not show that creationism isn’t viable. His lack of understanding a Christian worldview greatly undercut his point.

The bottom line:
First, seeks to understand and then be understood is a key rule of thumb when entering a debate. Second, you cannot argue people into heaven, but we should have a clear and reasonable defense for the hope that is within us. Third, evidence rarely matters when the issue is worldview. Finally, seek to make a difference and not a point. Even if you win the debate that evolution is wrong, if one doesn’t accept the message we received, the debate doesn’t matter. Jesus died and rose again on the third day. The key to passing on that message is a submissive spirit that does good works (1 Peter).

Our job isn’t to reach America, it’s to reach americans. ~Rick Warren