Last night, along with a few others from my church family, I watched the much anticipated debate between Bill Nye (the science guy) and Ken Ham in which they sought to answer, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s scientific era?” In other words, is it reasonable to assert that a sovereign, omnipotent Creator made the universe, the earth, and all living things about 6,000 years ago? Or, to be scientific, must we embrace naturalistic causes and billions of years? Is this a conflict between superstition and science or a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on different interpretations of the evidence?
- There are a number of well-documented examples throughout history of widely-embraced scientific “facts” that turned out to be completely wrong. For example, in ancient Greece, it was believed that the liver, not the heart, pumped the blood in your body, and that your organs consumed your blood as fuel. This was finally disproven in 1628 by William Harvey. Another example: Until the late 19th century, doctors didn’t wash their hands before surgery and blamed the subsequent diseases, not on germs, but on “bad air” and the “four humors.” You might also research spontaneous generation, phlogiston, alchemy and blood-letting. And there are so many other examples. My point is that there is a difference between consensus and fact, and sometimes, it is hard to tell the difference (because of limited knowledge and presuppositions). Darwinian evolution may be the consensus view of scientists today, but that doesn’t mean it’s a fact. And even though we know a lot more than folks did a few hundred years ago, don’t think we know it all. In fact, I would suggest to you that we have barely scratched the surface of scientific truth.
- Even among evolutionists, there isn’t consensus regarding what exactly has happened and how it has happened. For example, not all evolutionists explain the origin of the universe by the Big Bang theory. Others ascribe to the “Steady State Theory.” There are different views regarding the means by which dinosaurs “went extinct.” Some say it was a meteor, others, a volcanic eruption, and so on. And if you think there is consensus regarding human evolution, you are mistaken! There is constant debate regarding the identity of so-called “primitive man.” In fact, if you’ve been following the news lately, there is growing skepticism that Neanderthal was an intermediate link between man and our so-called “ape-like ancestor.” And so within the scientific community, there are countless disagreements and debates raging over even the most basic tenets of origins and evolution. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.
So…”is creationism a viable model of origins in today’s scientific era?” Of course! As with “old earth evolutionists,” creationists have a worldview that is based on an interpretation of the evidence that exists. And I would agree with Ken Ham’s assertion last night that creationism, in fact, offers the most sensible explanation of the evidence.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heart. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).