Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Bias’

The Clash of Worldviews

February 10, 2014 3 comments

(This article came out Feb 5, 2014)

Albert Mohler wrote an article entitled “Bill Nye’s Reasonable Man—The Central Worldview Clash of the Ham-Nye Debate” that discusses how the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham was basically the clash of two differing world views. As we approach the discussion of Origins and First Cause, our interpretation of the evidence will be the result of the presuppositions we hold to while examining these concepts.

Bill Nye certainly rejects any divine intervention when it comes to the question of where life and this world came from. Mohler quotes him as saying,

 

“[I]f you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.”

 

On the other hand, Ken Ham approaches the subject of Origins through the lens of scripture.

Albert Mohler writes:

 

“As the debate began, it was clear that Ham and Nye do not even agree on definitions. The most friction on definition came when Nye rejected Ham’s distinction between “historical science” and “observational science” out of hand. Nye maintained his argument that science is a unitary method, without any distinction between historical and observational modes. Ham pressed his case that science cannot begin without making certain assumptions about the past, which cannot be observed. Furthermore, Ham rightly insisted that observational science generally does not require any specific commitment to a model of historical science. In other words, both evolutionists and creationists do similar experimental science, and sometimes even side-by-side.

Nye’s main presentation contained a clear rejection of biblical Christianity. At several points in the debate, he dismissed the Bible’s account of Noah and the ark as unbelievable. Oddly, he even made this a major point in his most lengthy argument. As any informed observer would have anticipated, Nye based his argument on the modern consensus and went to the customary lines of evidence, from fossils to ice rods. Ham argued back with fossil and geological arguments of his own. Those portions of the debate did not advance the arguments much past where they were left in the late nineteenth century, with both sides attempting to keep score by rocks and fossils.”

 

If you would like to read the entire article, you can find it by clicking here.

Concerning Believing the Gospel

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.

 Saint Augustine (354-430)