Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Pagan
Lessons From the Nye-Ham Debate

Lessons From the Nye-Ham Debate

Last updated on: February 13, 2014 at 6:28 pm by John Beckett

Lessons From the Nye-Ham Debate 2014-02-13T18:28:32-06:00 John Beckett

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I didn’t watch last week’s evolution vs. creationism debate between Science Guy Bill Nye and Creation Museum founder Ken Ham. I had better things to do than listen to them talk past each other. That was all they could do – Nye and Ham share no common ground from which to begin a rational debate.

I’m familiar with their arguments. I’ve read excerpts and commentary of the debate. I’ve read more of Ham’s Answers in Genesis than I wish I had. Any lingering doubts I might have had about evolution were crushed when I read Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth. While I agree with those who said the debate was unlikely to change anyone’s mind, it presented some issues of importance to us all.

A third of Americans reject the theory of evolution, a theory so strong and so in line with the evidence that cries of “it’s just a theory” are laughable. How can this be? Despite my cynicism around contemporary culture, I don’t think a third of Americans are intellectually inferior or tragically uninformed. Most, I suspect, unmindfully repeat what they were taught by parents or preachers. Some are uncomfortable with our close relation to other animals and the loss of our privileged position as the sole creatures “made in the image of God.” A few can’t or won’t grasp the concept of deep time.

In the words of philosopher Brendan Myers, “no one is served or benefitted by believing in false or faulty ideas.”

What do we unquestioningly accept because it’s what we’ve always believed? What meaningful concepts do we reject simply because they’re hard?

This doesn’t fully explain the allure of creationism. There are some highly intelligent, very well educated people who are creationists. Rev. Al Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is a fundamentalist, but there is no questioning his intellect. How can that be? Here’s a quote from an essay Rev. Mohler wrote in 2011 about the incompatibility of Evangelical Christianity with evolution:

the denial of a historical Adam means not only the rejection of a clear biblical teaching, but also the denial of the biblical doctrine of the Fall, leading to a very different way of telling the story of the Bible and the meaning of the Gospel.

In other words, if evolution is correct and Genesis is not literally true, then his entire religion tumbles like a house of cards (not Christianity, just his particular flavor of Christianity). Rev. Mohler carefully refrains from claiming that the undesirable (for him) consequences mean his conclusion must be correct, but his self-identification as a young earth creationist shows this is what he believes.

What do we cling to not because we’re sure it’s true but because of what we would have to change if it wasn’t?

Because of science’s demonstrated reliability in explaining the natural world, it is a tremendous source of authority. No one – not even a fundamentalist – can completely dismiss science and still be taken seriously. So Ken Ham and his fellow creationists misrepresent science, claiming there is a categorical difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” and between “observational science” and “historical science.” They accept what they can see with their own eyes (some of it, anyway) and rationalize away anything that does not conform to their desired conclusions.

How can they do that? Here’s Rev. Mohler again, this time commenting on the recent debate.

The argument was never really about ice rods and sediment layers. It was about the most basic of all intellectual presuppositions: How do we know anything at all? On what basis do we grant intellectual authority? Is the universe self-contained and self-explanatory? Is there a Creator, and can we know him?

On those questions, Ham and Nye were separated by infinite intellectual space. They shared the stage, but they do not live in the same intellectual world. Nye is truly committed to a materialistic and naturalistic worldview. Ham is an evangelical Christian committed to the authority of the Bible. The clash of ultimate worldview questions was vividly displayed for all to see.

This brings us to the issue of worldviews, of our core assumptions about the Universe and the way it works. Creationists claim we can’t know the answers to the big questions of life. I agree with them here, though I strongly disagree as to why we can’t know. So since we can’t know, and they aren’t willing to live with not knowing, they assume the Bible is literally true and go from there.

There is a kind of freedom in not knowing – where we don’t know, we’re free to believe what seems most likely to us. But we aren’t free to believe anything we want. We’re not free to ignore clear evidence and say “you can’t prove me wrong.”

What facts do we ignore because they don’t match our assumptions? What experiences do we dismiss because they don’t fit into our worldview?

Creationists claim they understand their presuppositions while everyone else ignores their own. But ironically, fundamentalists and atheists alike share an unexamined assumption: that the only real truth is literal truth. Marc Barnes at Bad Catholic here on Patheos has a very good – if overly long – explanation.

Fundamentalism, which includes creationism, is a modern phenomenon. The Middle Ages, though rife with scientific illiteracy in comparison with our age, never bred such a beast. It is a 20th century frenzy, not the product of ignorance as much as a by-product of materialism, and I daily blame … the propagators of this selfsame materialism for cursing the world with the idiocies of devil-buried fossils and 6-day literalism. For evolution is only ever a threat to the idea of God if your idea of God has been hopelessly manhandled by materialistic assumptions. That’s right kids. Creationism is materialism’s inescapable, obnoxious spouse.

This assumption overvalues literal truth and devalues mythical truth and mystical truth. It demands black or white answers and ignores the rainbow. I’ve long said bad science makes bad religion – I should add that unexamined assumptions make bad religion too.

What unexamined assumptions – about the way things are or about the way they should be – are causing problems in your life? What other assumptions would be more likely or more helpful?

There is another issue here that nobody’s talking about – fear. If you grow up being taught that accepting the Evangelical version of the story of Jesus means you’ll go to heaven and rejecting it means you’ll suffer unspeakable torments for ever and ever, then continuing to accept that story – no matter how implausible it is – becomes very important.

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it’s hard to get someone to understand science when they believe the eternal fate of their soul depends on not understanding it.

I grew up in that environment. I know the fear it brings. I couldn’t overcome that fear intellectually. Oh, I was convinced the Bible couldn’t be literally true and that the god of fundamentalism couldn’t be the Creator of the Universe. But something in my head kept whispering “but what if you’re wrong?” I didn’t break completely free of fundamentalism until I began to experience the Gods and Goddesses of my ancestors. Bad religion had to be crowded out by good religion.

Where is fear ruling your life? Where is a bad experience from long ago keeping you from pursuing your dreams, responding to the Gods, or simply accepting the truth of what is?

Science has shown itself to be a reliable authority on the natural world and on literal truth. When we ignore or deny its results we lose integrity and we live lives that are less than they could be.

But science has limitations. Or perhaps, the limitations are not with the scientific method but with the scientific operators. Perhaps there are things we can’t know not because we haven’t discovered them yet but because they’re beyond the capacity of our huge-but-finite human brains. But there are other ways of knowing, and when we ignore mythic truth and mystical truth we live lives that are less than they could be.

A healthy religion is a combination of lore and received wisdom, the values and ethics of the tradition, the rituals and customs that have proved meaningful and helpful, dedicated personal and group practice, and the experience of the Divine here and now. A healthy religion respects both the results of science and its limitations.

I doubt the Nye-Ham debate changed your mind about evolution. I hope it causes you to ask some hard questions – and to diligently search for answers.

Previous Post

February 11, 2014

ADF Texas Imbolc Retreat

Next Post

February 16, 2014 Why I Am (Still) a Unitarian Universalist

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Books Community CUUPS Druidry Foundations and Context Gods and Goddesses Magic Myth Nature Ritual Spiritual Practice Theology Travel Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What natural disaster did God use to destroy the earth in Noah’s time?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Earthquake Flood Famine Fire