Ken Ham vs Bill Nye – It’s NOT Bible vs Science

Tonight is the big debate at the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky between young earth creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Science Guy.  You can watch the debate tonight at 7pm on NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com or debatelive.org.

Virtually every news report I’ve seen, especially locally, since I live 25 minutes from the Creation Museum, have billed this event as religion or the Bible versus science but that it totally inaccurate.

Creationists like Ken Ham use the very same science that Bill Nye uses.  Science is facts and statistics that can be observed, tested and proven to be right.  Science does not choose sides in the debate, it just provides information.

The difference lies in how someone interprets the facts of science.  Allow me to demonstrate.  Say you are out digging and you find a fossilized dinosaur bone.  You excavate it, measure it and study it to determine what bone it is and to what dinosaur it belonged to.  You can test it to see if there are any organic compounds still present or not.  You can study the indications of muscle attachment places and so forth.  That is science.

When you start to interpret what you learned from the dinosaur bone, EVERYONE starts from their own BELIEF system.  If you believe in evolution and millions of years, that is how you will interpret the information you gleaned from science.  You will assume that it has to be between 65 million and 245 million years old based upon your belief or presupposition in evolutionary theory.  You may narrow the age of the bone down to a specific period between those dates based upon the layer of rock it was found in, but the rock is also aged based upon a belief in millions of years of evolution.  Depending on the type of rock, you may be able to run it through one of many dating tests, but realize that all of the dating methods are also based upon the assumption of millions of years and constants that have been proven to be inconsistent.

Did you know that when Don Johanson discovered the famous Lucy fossil, he ran many dating tests of the rock it was found in?  Most of those tests yielded dates much younger than what Johanson was looking for, but when he got the date he wanted, that’s the one he accepted.

Another example of the fallacies of radiometric dating was the testing of the lava flows from Mt. Ngauruhoe volcano in New Zealand.  Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling collected samples of lava flows that took place during eruptions on Feb. 11, 1948, June 4, 1954, June 30, 1954, July 14 1954 and Feb 19, 1975.  He used the standard K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating method used by evolutionists based upon the following three assumptions:

“1.  When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;”

“2.  After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and”

“3.  The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.”

All of the samples were processed by a reputable lab and yielded dates ranging from less the 270,000 years to 3.5 million years.  All of the samples were less than 100 years old, but evolutionary dating placed it as old as 3.5 million years.

I could fill pages with more examples of problematic dating such as excess amounts of argon found in the lava from Mt. St. Helens or the drastic differences in dates between a piece of wood found encased in lava.  I hope you see the problem with the dating methods used by evolutionists.

In biology, evolutionists point to speciation as proof for their theory, but as a creationist, I see speciation as proof of creation.  When an organism gives rise to a new species, it generally means that the new species is incapable of reproducing with the parent organism.  This is due to the loss of genetic variation or rearrangement of the genetic code in the new species, yet evolution is based upon the constant addition of new genetic information, not the loss of such.  In fact, speciation eventually leads to such a loss of genetic variability that the organism can no longer adapt to changes in its environment and it goes extinct.  This is the exact opposite of what evolution requires.

I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Wildlife/Fisheries Biology and a Master of Science Degree in Biology with the emphasis on the Founder Principle in Population Genetics.  Most of my career I have spent studying evolution and the more I study it, the more convinced I am that it is nothing more than a belief system to deny the biblical account of creation and the existence of our Creator God.

In fact, everything that evolutionary biology teaches is based upon the single premise that life somehow miraculously started on its own.  Yet the first and single most important law of biology states that life cannot arise from non-life.  If you can’t get past that first law of biology, then all evolutionary biology collapses.

So when Ken Ham and Bill Nye hold their debate tonight and you read about it in the news, understand that it is not about religion or the Bible versus science, but a debate of one presuppositional view on origins versus a different presuppositional view on origins.  One view is based on the infallible and inerrant Word of God and the other is based upon the fallible and errant word of man.  I don’t know about you, but I have learned to trust God’s Word over man’s and it has never led me wrong.