Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern Scientific Era?

That was the question presented by last night (2/4/2014). This debate was held in Kentucky with two well educated men who present two widely different approaches to modern science. Something worth considering is how two highly educated men can possess such a diverse view on fundamental scientific questions.

Bill Nye Headshot

Bill Nye “The Science Guy”

Holds to an extreme naturalistic worldview on the approach to science, that everything that is and was is a result of millions of “natural processes” that took place and are currently taking place at random to create the order that we see and experience daily.


Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis

Maintains a strong defensive status that science is an observation of God’s claims about the universe from The Bible. With a Christian worldview approach to science he uses observable evidence to make a case for Creationism


Dr. Ham’s Presentation

Although both individuals came prepared it seemed evident throughout the night that Dr. Ham was more equipped to answer the question on trial. His 45 minute presentation was poignant and presented claim after claim – the need for Creationism to have a fair trial within the public school system.

The main accusation was towards the usurped authority that “modern” scientist have held over key terms (i.e. science, evolution, etc.) in an attempt to create division between Creationist and Darwinist hypothesis/worldview. Even Dr. Nye’s statements throughout the night attempted to “high-jack” these phrases to make a distinction between what Nye considers, real science and Dr. Ham’s magical science.

Dr. Ham made a strong statement to call out Dr. Nye’s “real science,” pointing out that “modern” science relies greatly on a belief system just as much as Creationism; if not more. Although Dr. Nye and his colleagues deny such a phrase, the facts about  historical origin science (essentially data that cannot be seen or tested) presented by Dr. Ham, reveal that it takes great faith to assume the reliability of statements that cannot be tested.

For example, in math class we’ve all seen the question.

If a train is traveling at X speed for Y minutes directly north, how far did it travel?

Dr. Nye resolves that this is a simple mathematical equation that can be solved no matter whether you’re talking about trains, stars, or platonic plates, but if:

  • You admit you don’t have X or Y to solve for D (distance)
  • AND  if you admit that X and Y are not consistent; they are constantly changing
  • AND  if you admit catastrophic events occurred during that time

At that point, most reasonable thinking scientist resolve that the question cannot be solved without more information OR if you are “modern in your thinking,” make assumptions about the data. This is the pivotal disagreement and the reason for this debate to take place. At this point the school curriculum either teaches future generations HOW to think, or WHAT to think.

Dr. Nye’s Presentation

In response, Dr. Nye provided complex examples of scientific findings that he claimed anyone can test and prove as a method to verify the age of the earth in millions of years.

Let’s all get our radio active measuring stick and get to that

The main concern with nearly his entire presentation is its premise that radioactive decay dating is 100% reliable, even though there are clear discrepancies throughout its practice (described by Dr. Ham previously).

In addition, Dr. Nye thoroughly promoted the notion, with strong authoritative overtones might I add, that only through a Darwinist worldview can true science take place because it nurtures “prediction.” His testimony to keep Darwinism exclusive in the public school system is the need to indoctrinate future generations with innovative thinking; which he accuses Creationism of being incapable of producing.

“Do you have a creation model that can predict?!!….” -Dr. Nye

I say “the need to indoctrinate” because the truth is they, Dr. Nye and company, don’t want Creationism in the conversation because it makes them more accountable to the very basic questions of science.

  • Where did we come from?
  • Why do we posses consciousness and guilt?
  • How did the atoms that create the universe get there?

This Naturalist perspective appears to be more concerned with assuming an authority of intelligence, providing inadequate answers, and reducing any other perspective to be irrelevant to the human purpose.


Overall the moderation of the debate was perfect, it was great to see both men freely present their case with one another without some outside influence spinning the message (now if we could get that for the presidential debates). The differences between both arguments made it clear that we see evidence through our own reality.

For someone to approach science observation-ally it is very easy to test God’s claims in the The Bible to the reality we experience. But if you insist removing the data present in clear observations then you will be left to make inadequate assumptions based on your views on history; which you weren’t present for.

What are you thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Why? Live your comments below