All posts by waynespencer

Bill Nye vs Ken Ham

On February 4, 2014 Bill Nye, well-known as “The Science Guy” debated Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis in Kentucky. It was a very interesting debate and it has generated a great deal of interest on the internet. It was very popular on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. Answers in Genesis people estimate there were probably at least 5 million people that watched the video. It can still be watched online or purchased on DVD from Answers in Genesis.

Bill Nye has done a great service over the years in explaining science to young people and lay people in an engaging and fun way. His TV programs are very well done in general. So I really like what he has done to get people interested in science. But on origins and creation versus evolution, I find his comments very disappointing and troubling. He treats it as if teaching young people a creationist view of science is somehow harmful to kids and keeps them from getting a good education. I couldn’t disagree more with this.

The debate was set up with first a 5 minute introduction from both presenters, followed by 30 minutes from each, followed by two short rebuttals from each. There were also some questions and answers at the end, making the entire program around 2 hours long. It was very fairly moderated and was well done.

Bill Nye was generally polite but he was not totally respectful of Ken Ham. He kept referring to Mr. Ham’s world view or Mr. Ham’s followers almost as if Ken Ham was a cult leader or something. Ken Ham’s world view is simply historic Biblical Christianity. Bill Nye was obviously extremely ignorant about what creationists think about all sorts of issues. He brought up worthwhile issues but often didn’t understand well enough to explain the difference between an evolutionary view and the Biblical creation viewpoint.

Bill Nye brought up a number of things that creationists have thoroughly addressed. His comments bring up many common misconceptions people in the sciences and in the media have about creationists in particular. One example was claiming that there are too many species to explain how they could all come about since Noah’s Flood. Nye totally failed to understand this issue. His answer shows he hasn’t read or understood what creationists say about it. The number of species alive today is far more than what needed to be on Noah’s Ark. There really has been some serious research on this and Nye seems to know nothing about what creationists say on it. He implied that a creation view is unlike what he thinks of as “real science” in that “real” science makes predictions. But creationist scientists have occasionally developed models that have made predictions. A great example is physicist Dr. Russ Humphreys. He developed a theory on the creation of the magnetic fields of the planets. He used this to predict the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, before the Voyager spacecrafts measured it. When the Voyager spacecraft measured the magnetic field strengths of these planets, it was within what Humphrey’s had predicted, but evolutionary secular scientists were very surprised and were way off. I wish Ken Ham would have mentioned this but he didn’t.

Ken Ham did very well I thought in giving real Biblical answers to Nye’s challenges and in bringing up good examples of well qualified scientists, successful in the scientific world, who happen to be creationists. I don’t think Ken Ham is the best at giving scientific answers on some issues but in a debate format like this you have very limited time and it is really difficult to answer everything in the brief time of a debate setting. (I once debated a biology professor.) There are multiple articles that have popped up on answersingenesis.org and creation.com since the debate that give various commentary on it. There are also some videos on Youtube that congratulate Bill Nye for how “wonderfully” he did. He did keep a good composure but I’m not impressed with Bill Nye’s understanding of the issues. People in the secular media are too ignorant of a creationist point of view to properly evaluate how Nye did.

There’s often a tendancy of people in science to treat it as if we are superior today because of our scientific knowledge, compared to people of the past. We do have a lot of scientific knowledge and this knowledge has been to our great benefit. But you can’t just assume that people in the past were uncapable of things. There’s been examples of skills known in the past but lost as modern technology has developed. Then somewhere an archeologist rediscovers clever ways ancient peoples did things. Ancient peoples did not have knowledge equivalent to us today, but they were sometimes more ingenious than we are, in spite of the limitations of their knowledge.

This is all relevant to Bill Nye’s comments about Noah building the Ark. People in science treat many things from ancient history the same way. He brought up the idea that a large wooden ship would not hold together in the open ocean but would come apart. We don’t know many details of how Noah built the Ark. Just because few people today, including many modern ship engineers, don’t know how to build such a wooden boat doesn’t mean that Noah couldn’t do it. Ken Ham’s museum has models showing how the ancient Greeks were able to build ships that were stronger than other people using a special multi-layered interlocking construction technique. This would be a plausible method for building a very large boat. We also have historical records from China from a Chinese ruler named Zheng He. Zheng He led several journeys across the world in a very large treasure fleet in the 15th century Ming Dynasty. Chinese writings say some of these wooden ships were 450 feet long and 180 feet wide. Historians have questioned the size of these ships. But this would be bigger than anything from the Greeks and would compare in size to Noah’s Ark. There have also been modern engineering studies of the Ark based on its dimensions given in the Bible and there’s no real valid reason to doubt that building such a ship was possible or that it would not be safe or stable in the ocean. I could give technical sources to back this up. This is real research that Bill Nye has no idea about.

There’s a mindset from the unbelieving world we live in that leads people away from the answers people really need. A debate such as the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate is a rare opportunity that can attract interest enough for people of various points of view to hear both sides. I am sorry for how Bill Nye misses the boat in his understanding about creationism. While evolutionists have been dismissing and insulting creationists for the last 60 years, young age creationists with science degrees have been doing research that is important. But creationist ideas are shut out of things in many settings, sometimes even in Christian settings. Creationist answers have become stronger and stronger, but people don’t know about them. This ignorance is a sad state of affairs. But there are occasional bright lights in the darkness.

Evidence from Ai

My last blog post was about the long day of Joshua.  This was when the Jews began their conquest of the land of Canaan, as described in the Old Testament book of Joshua.  Recent news has brought up something related to another place conquered by the Jews after the Exodus – a little place called Ai (pronounced like the letter “i”).  I keep up some with an organization that does archeological research related to the Bible, called Associates for Biblical Research (ABR).  They have done some great research that confirms the accuracy of the Bible.  So what is Ai?  Ai was the second place conquered by the Jews in Canaan.  They first took Jericho, where the Jews marched around the city for 7 days and then the walls fell down (from an earthquake apparently).  The second place (Ai) was Northwest of Jericho and is a short distance East of Bethel.  Ai was not actually a city, but just a fortress.  In Joshua chapter 8 in the Old Testament, it describes Joshua using the topography of the area to hide an ambush force and draw the soldiers of Ai out of the fortress.  This led the men of Ai into a trap, and so Joshua was victorious.  After Ai the Israelites did the battle for Gibeon, which was when the long day happened.

Ai has been somewhat of an archeological controversy because archeologists and scholars who’ve looked for Ai have said it doesn’t exist where the Bible seems to indicate.  Scholars had been identifying Ai to be at a site called et-Tell that they know does not fit the Biblical account and so it has raised questions about the accuracy of the Bible.  Scholars have a great tendancy to underestimate the Bible on historical detail and assume that what scholars come up with today is more reliable than what the Bible has said.  But it is not a good idea to assume scholars today will give more reliable historical information than the Bible.  If it appears the historical data is in disagreement with the Bible, it generally just means we don’t have all the relevant information, or someone just hasn’t done a proper investigation of it yet.  Assuming the Bible is not historical leads scholars in the wrong direction in history and archeology, just as wrong assumptions about evolution leads scientists in biology or geology in the wrong direction.  Regarding the conquest of Canaan by the ancient Jews, either the Exodus is assumed to have never happened at all, or it is understood to be at the wrong time.  There are two views Bible scholars and historians tend to have on when the Exodus and conquest of Canaan took place.  For the beginning of the conquest of Canaan, one date is around 1200 B.C. and the other is around 1400 B.C.  The date that fits the Bible is 1406 B.C.  Sadly, this makes the old Cecil B. DeMille movie on the Ten Commandments wrong about the Pharoah of the Exodus.  DeMille’s view of the Exodus was incorrect on the date and which Pharoah it was.  But many scholars go along with the same view, which puts Rameses as the Pharoah of the Exodus and the Exodus as the later date.

But is there evidence for the earlier date of the Exodus and for the Jews conquering Canaan?  Absolutely!  I won’t go into all of it on Jericho here, but ABR has good evidence for the fall of Jericho around 1400 B.C. that beautifully fits the Biblical account.  The location of Jericho is well known and there is evidence that the walls collapsed and evidence of fire.  These and other details fit the Biblical account.  ABR has also been excavating at Ai for years at a site that is now called Khirbet el-Maqatir.  ABR has found pottery that suggests the 1400 B.C. date.  They’ve found clear evidence for the city gate of Ai from large stones that have pivot holes in them used by the city gate.  Now there is also evidence from an Egyptian scarab that further strengthens the date at around 1400 B.C.  The scarab is about 3/4 of an inch long, oval in shape.  The scarab is important because it can be dated well to be from between 1485 and 1418 B.C., according to Associates for Biblical Research.  So this provides a means of dating the evidence that is independent of pottery dates.  The ABR research on Ai fits what the Bible describes nicely and also agrees with the 1446 B.C. date of the Exodus and the 1406 B.C. date for the start of the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan.  To see a picture of the scarab and more archeological evidence in Israel, go to this page from Christianity Today, or this page from ABR.