Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate Upcoming!

[Damon Rambo]

Hello, all!

It has just been announced that Bill Nye will debate Ken Ham on the topic of creation and evolution, February 4th.

You can read the official announcement here: Answers in Genesis

You can read MY assessment, HERE

Ham is at least moderately presuppositional in his approach, so I am really looking forward to this.

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[Miss Marple]

Wow, I'd love to see this.

Will it stream?

 

[Damon Rambo]

Wow, I'd love to see this.

Will it stream?

They have not said yet. I am hoping so...they probably will, but will announce it after they have sold out seating..

 

[Darryl Le Roux]

Slightly far for me, but I will without a doubt catch it if it's streamed. Thanks for this!

 

[Miss Marple]

Yes, I can't make it to Kentucky, but I would love to see this and gather the family 'round to watch.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

What is Bill Nye's religious outlook?

 

[Damon Rambo]

What is Bill Nye's religious outlook?

I do believe he is an atheist.

 

[ReformedChristian]

This should be interesting on how the Presuppositional approach will be used regarding evolution. Greg Bahnsen did a critique of evolution using presuppositionalism if he were alive today it would of been interesting to see him debate Bill Nyle on the subject.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Wow, I'd love to see this.

Will it stream?

YES! The debate will be streamed live! Creationist Vs. Atheist: Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Will Stream Live

 

[SolaSaint]

Thanks for the info, I will not miss this one, sounds very exciting. I have heard Nye ridicule creationism, so I'm praying for a well prepared Ken Hamm.

 

[MW]

Ham is at least moderately presuppositional in his approach

Biblical presuppositionalism starts with the self-attesting God of Scripture; it does not start with the view that a certain model of science is correct and must be synthesised with the biblical doctrine of creation to constitute a preternatural view of the world called "creation science."

 

[au5t1n]

Ham is at least moderately presuppositional in his approach

Biblical presuppositionalism starts with the self-attesting God of Scripture; it does not start with the view that a certain model of science is correct and must be synthesised with the biblical doctrine of creation to constitute a preternatural view of the world called "creation science."

This brings up something I've been wondering. I understand the importance of separating interpretation of Scripture from the scientific method, but surely this doesn't mean science can never be performed that takes historical knowledge from the Bible into account? For example, a historical, global flood had a dramatic impact on the composition of the earth's surface. Surely Christians who study geology cannot be obliged to ignore the Bible's revelation of this event. Is there a way to do science in light of Biblical knowledge on certain things that does not inappropriately meld the two disciplines, eg, by trying to use science to "prove" Scripture?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

This brings up something I've been wondering. I understand the importance of separating interpretation of Scripture from the scientific method, but surely this doesn't mean science can never be performed that takes historical knowledge from the Bible into account? For example, a historical, global flood had a dramatic impact on the composition of the earth's surface. Surely Christians who study geology cannot be obliged to ignore the Bible's revelation of this event. Is there a way to do science in light of Biblical knowledge on certain things that does not inappropriately meld the two disciplines, eg, by trying to use science to "prove" Scripture?

The problem is the overlapping investigation into historical periods, and the flood is a major epoch in biblical history. Is there evidence which shows the effects of flood on a worldwide scale, or is geology made to fit within a flood-scheme? I would be open to look at the first without making any definitive statement on it, especially since historians and archaeologists also testify of flood-traditions on a fairly wide scale, though the timing is out. But fitting the evidence into a flood-scheme seems counter-intuitive.

 

[au5t1n]

This brings up something I've been wondering. I understand the importance of separating interpretation of Scripture from the scientific method, but surely this doesn't mean science can never be performed that takes historical knowledge from the Bible into account? For example, a historical, global flood had a dramatic impact on the composition of the earth's surface. Surely Christians who study geology cannot be obliged to ignore the Bible's revelation of this event. Is there a way to do science in light of Biblical knowledge on certain things that does not inappropriately meld the two disciplines, eg, by trying to use science to "prove" Scripture?

The problem is the overlapping investigation into historical periods, and the flood is a major epoch in biblical history. Is there evidence which shows the effects of flood on a worldwide scale, or is geology made to fit within a flood-scheme? I would be open to look at the first without making any definitive statement on it, especially since historians and archaeologists also testify of flood-traditions on a fairly wide scale, though the timing is out. But fitting the evidence into a flood-scheme seems counter-intuitive.

I see. Then let me ask what, specifically, your objection to Ken Ham's work is?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

Then let me ask what, specifically, your objection to Ken Ham's work is?

There is "creation" which we understand through faith, Hebrews 11:3, and there is "science" which is discerned through observing physical phenomena, Matthew 16:2-3 -- both equally valid in their own domain -- and then there is "creation science" which seeks to observe creation by science and restrict science to creation-faith.

 

[au5t1n]

Then let me ask what, specifically, your objection to Ken Ham's work is?

There is "creation" which we understand through faith, Hebrews 11:3, and there is "science" which is discerned through observing physical phenomena, Matthew 16:2-3 -- both equally valid in their own domain -- and then there is "creation science" which seeks to observe creation by science and restrict science to creation-faith.

Aren't they ultimately in harmony, though, as long as we understand that the domain of scientific observation does not yield infallible revelation and thus we cannot expect to have perfect understanding of how they are harmonized at every point?

Is the problem just when science is used to try to demonstrate or prove creation, or is there something more to it?

An example may help illustrate where my uncertainty lies. Suppose an unbeliever points out that there are fossils in strata that date to millions of years ago. Is it valid to point out that a global flood would dramatically shorten the age calculation, or is this contrary to presuppositional methodology because it is seeking to defend God's Word using science, in a sense?

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

Aren't they ultimately in harmony, though, as long as we understand that the domain of scientific observation does not yield infallible revelation and thus we cannot expect to have perfect understanding of how they are harmonized at every point?

Science is a part of man's dominion. Scripture is divine revelation. I don't expect harmony in man's fallen condition. Of course in God's knowledge objective science and biblical revelation are perfectly and infallibly harmonised, but we are not granted that knowledge.

Is the problem just when science is used to try to demonstrate or prove creation, or is there something more to it?

Facts themselves become preternatural; neither revelation nor observation, but a mixture of both.

An example may help illustrate where my uncertainty lies. Suppose an unbeliever points out that there are fossils in strata that date to millions of years ago. Is it valid to point out that a global flood would dramatically shorten the age calculation, or is this contrary to presuppositional methodology because it is seeking to defend God's Word using science, in a sense?

As with presuppositional apologetics the believer and unbeliever are in antithesis, you have called the person who speaks contrary to "creation science" an unbeliever by default. This is also the kind of apologetic Dr. Ham engages in. People like Thomas Chalmers and Charles Hodge end up being represented as unbelieving believers. The geologist is just working in his field seeking to make an honest living. He might be a believer or an unbeliever in our Lord Jesus Christ. I don't think he should be judged on the basis of something which is neither faith nor science.

A global flood shortening time-scales should be proven by the scientific method, not imposed on the evidence.

 

[au5t1n]

Thank you for the helpful explanation. Regarding my example, it was just a common example I have seen in which an actual unbeliever opposes Christianity on the above grounds. It really wasn't meant to be a statement about anyone else.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

Thank you for the helpful explanation. Regarding my example, it was just a common example I have seen in which an actual unbeliever opposes Christianity on the above grounds. It really wasn't meant to be a statement about anyone else.

Sorry; I didn't mean to reflect on your statement but on the problem with introducing presuppositional apologetics and the antithesis in this general area. Obviously an unbeliever can raise that argument; the problem with connecting creation science with presuppositionalism is that because such an argument is directly contrary to creation science it is immediately relegated to the realm of "unbelief" rather than being tried by the evidence. I hope that makes sense.

 

[earl40]

Science is a part of man's dominion. Scripture is divine revelation. I don't expect harmony in man's fallen condition. Of course in God's knowledge objective science and biblical revelation are perfectly and infallibly harmonised, but we are not granted that knowledge.

Could we, who hold to scripture as the primary authority, be corected in a incorrect belief on what scripture teaches by science or natural theology? I think slavery could be an example in that there were Christians who were wrong on this issue who changed their mind on what scripture taught on that issue because of natural instinct and revisited scripture to see where they went wrong.

 

[au5t1n]

Could we, who hold to scripture as the primary authority, be corected in a incorrect belief on what scripture teaches by science or natural theology? I think slavery could be an example in that there were Christians who were wrong on this issue who changed their mind on what scripture taught on that issue because of natural instinct and revisited scripture to see where they went wrong.

To my mind, your example only serves to show the danger of such an approach to Scriptural interpretation.

 

[au5t1n]

Sorry; I didn't mean to reflect on your statement but on the problem with introducing presuppositional apologetics and the antithesis in this general area. Obviously an unbeliever can raise that argument; the problem with connecting creation science with presuppositionalism is that because such an argument is directly contrary to creation science it is immediately relegated to the realm of "unbelief" rather than being tried by the evidence. I hope that makes sense.

It does. I guess my underlying question is just what implications this has or doesn't have for the scientist who is a Christian. You believe the earth is at rest with respect to ultimate reality as divinely revealed in Scripture. I have no problem at all understanding why you think it is fair for the scientist to operate differently. What I am wondering, though, is whether it is ever legitimate for a Christian scientist to take knowledge from Scripture into account. The flood example was a good one because the flood is not merely an abstract event from divine revelation - It was an historical event that inevitably had catastrophic effects on the dirt that scientists dig in today. How can the Christian who is a geologist completely block it from his mind and not even be looking for it? Going back to the geocentric example: Supposing for the sake of argument your interpretation is correct (I am still mulling over your last reply to me in the other thread). Should Christian astronomers not even try to seek out physical theories which would make physical sense with the earth at rest? I understand the project may fail and ultimately is not necessary, but I have a hard time accepting that they can't even attempt it. Does that make sense?

 

[Damon Rambo]

Ham is at least moderately presuppositional in his approach

Biblical presuppositionalism starts with the self-attesting God of Scripture; it does not start with the view that a certain model of science is correct and must be synthesised with the biblical doctrine of creation to constitute a preternatural view of the world called "creation science."

Presuppositionalism starts with the self attesting God of scripture, and the "presupposition" that His Word is 100 percent true, infallible, and the ultimate standard by which all things are judged (at least, if you consider Van Til a presuppositionalist). Logic, science, morality, NONE of that makes sense, unless you start with the basis of God's infallible revelation to man, in which He communicated perfect knowledge to the created.

Thus, "Creation science" or more rightly, "Young Earth Creationism," is by necessity presuppositional, as it starts with the Bible, God's Revelation, as its presupposition, and interprets all evidence by the light of that truth.

Creation science, at least the Young Earth version, does not "start with a certain view of science." It starts with the Bible. It then interprets all evidence in light of its presuppositions; God, and His revealed knowledge. It is, by definition, presuppositional (not to say that all who promote it use presuppositional argumentation).

Ken Ham, if you are at all familiar with his work, is presuppositional. Heck, the guy quotes Van Til!

 

[MW]

Presuppositionalism starts with the self attesting God of scripture, and the "presupposition" that His Word is 100 percent true, infallible, and the ultimate standard by which all things are judged (at least, if you consider Van Til a presuppositionalist). Logic, science, morality, NONE of that makes sense, unless you start with the basis of God's infallible revelation to man, in which He communicated perfect knowledge to the created.

I am not sure why you are adding this definition to the term "self-attesting God of Scripture" since it is already contained in it.

The perfect knowledge which is communicated is Scripture truth, not inductive science. "Creation science" as a presuppositional approach would require one to include the inductions of science within that "perfect knowledge."

Van Til taught all facts are interpreted by God. He did not teach everything which calls itself science is God-given.

Thus, "Creation science" or more rightly, "Young Earth Creationism," is by necessity presuppositional, as it starts with the Bible, God's Revelation, as its presupposition, and interprets all evidence by the light of that truth.

It is certainly presuppositional but it does not start with the Bible.

Creation science, at least the Young Earth version, does not "start with a certain view of science." It starts with the Bible. It then interprets all evidence in light of its presuppositions; God, and His revealed knowledge. It is, by definition, presuppositional (not to say that all who promote it use presuppositional argumentation).

Creation scientists start with the concern that their worldview is under attack and seek to defend that worldview by an appeal to evidence when their faith should be in the self-attesting God of Scripture. They invoke the authority of the Bible presuppositionally when they cannot prove their scientific position from evidence.

Ken Ham, if you are at all familiar with his work, is presuppositional. Heck, the guy quotes Van Til!

This proves nothing.

 

[MW]

What I am wondering, though, is whether it is ever legitimate for a Christian scientist to take knowledge from Scripture into account.

He may take it into account; but he should not use it to prove a theory which he cannot properly account for in an evidentiary way.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Science is a part of man's dominion. Scripture is divine revelation. I don't expect harmony in man's fallen condition. Of course in God's knowledge objective science and biblical revelation are perfectly and infallibly harmonised, but we are not granted that knowledge.

Rev. Winzer,

I think what you are saying is that we should not necessarily expect our observations to harmonize with Scripture because the very means by which we observe is finite and fallen, therefore it is unnecessary to try and fit science and revelation together because they are incompatible in the current condition of humanity. I am just trying to understand your position because I know that you believe in the authority of Scripture, and many of us who hold the same position feel compelled to defend biblical revelation using all available means, including observational science.

 

[MW]

I think what you are saying is that we should not necessarily expect our observations to harmonize with Scripture because the very means by which we observe is finite and fallen, therefore it is unnecessary to try and fit science and revelation together because they are incompatible in the current condition of humanity. I am just trying to understand your position because I know that you believe in the authority of Scripture, and many of us who hold the same position feel compelled to defend biblical revelation using all available means, including observational science.

Bill, you have summarised my view accurately. If the authority of Scripture is the authority of God Himself, and if observational science is the observation of finite and fallen men, one wonders what means observational science can bring to the defence of the authority of Scripture without diminishing that authority and accrediting itself.

 

[Damon Rambo]

Presuppositionalism starts with the self attesting God of scripture, and the "presupposition" that His Word is 100 percent true, infallible, and the ultimate standard by which all things are judged (at least, if you consider Van Til a presuppositionalist). Logic, science, morality, NONE of that makes sense, unless you start with the basis of God's infallible revelation to man, in which He communicated perfect knowledge to the created.

I am not sure why you are adding this definition to the term "self-attesting God of Scripture" since it is already contained in it.

Necessary. God is distinct from His revelation. You speak of God as ultimate reality as if it is some kind of ethereal concept. Its not. God is perfectly revealed in scripture, INCLUDING scientific truth and logical realities.

The perfect knowledge which is communicated is Scripture truth, not inductive science. "Creation science" as a presuppositional approach would require one to include the inductions of science within that "perfect knowledge."

Not at ALL. You completely misunderstand presuppositionalism. A presuppositional approach to science, is the same as a presuppositional approach to evangelism, parenting, or anything else. God said it. He said it clearly (doctrine of perspicuity). Therefore all inductive knowledge gained must be understood in the light of that which has been revealed.

Van Til taught all facts are interpreted by God. He did not teach everything which calls itself science is God-given.

Nor does Young Earth Creationism. They take plain, undeniable, visible truth, and interpret via the revealed truth of God. To say that a person cannot use logic and reason, is to deny what presuppositionalism itself demands; that God has given revelation to man, so that he might know truth.

Thus, "Creation science" or more rightly, "Young Earth Creationism," is by necessity presuppositional, as it starts with the Bible, God's Revelation, as its presupposition, and interprets all evidence by the light of that truth.

It is certainly presuppositional but it does not start with the Bible.

Certainly it does.

Creation science, at least the Young Earth version, does not "start with a certain view of science." It starts with the Bible. It then interprets all evidence in light of its presuppositions; God, and His revealed knowledge. It is, by definition, presuppositional (not to say that all who promote it use presuppositional argumentation).

Creation scientists start with the concern that their worldview is under attack and seek to defend that worldview by an appeal to evidence when their faith should be in the self-attesting God of Scripture. They invoke the authority of the Bible presuppositionally when they cannot prove their scientific position from evidence.

The way you are defining evidentialism, removes the possibility of presuppositialism as an apologetic at all! Apologetics itself is an "answer"; i.e., it is a response to an attack. Creation scientists (at least presuppositional ones like Ken Ham) don't start out "appealing to evidence." Ham shows the fallacy in the other's worldview, and appeals to the Bible. Saying "That rock formation got there by the flood" is not a rejection of Presuppositionalism...it is actually an EMBRACING of presuppositionalism. They are interpreting all of the data according to the Bible, without regard to the evidence.

Young earth creationism, at its core, is a presuppositional approach to origins. It is saying, "God said it, I believe it."

Ken Ham, if you are at all familiar with his work, is presuppositional. Heck, the guy quotes Van Til!

This proves nothing.

So, when a person uses the same argumentation that one of the fathers of modern presuppositionalism used, that doesn't make his arguments presuppositional?

Again, I wonder if you are actually familiar with Mr. Hams debates. Ham does not spend a lot of time trying to defend the logic of the resurrection, or demonstrating how animals could fit on the ark. He tears down the others worldview, using scripture. That's presuppositional.

 

[MW]

You completely misunderstand presuppositionalism.

This epitomises the "presuppositionalism" of creation science. It builds its own little theoretical world and makes itself immune to critique. Anything which challenges it simply misunderstands everything. Eventually people leave them to themselves and regard discussion as a waste of time.

 

[earl40]

Could we, who hold to scripture as the primary authority, be corected in a incorrect belief on what scripture teaches by science or natural theology? I think slavery could be an example in that there were Christians who were wrong on this issue who changed their mind on what scripture taught on that issue because of natural instinct and revisited scripture to see where they went wrong.

To my mind, your example only serves to show the danger of such an approach to Scriptural interpretation.

In Romans it says we know what is right by The Lord revealing such in our conscience. So if a person who at one time practiced some type of sin and was conscience free because of a cultural norm (let's say slavery) and believed it was allowed in scripture. Now after some time the cultural norm changed along with the proper description of what the true nature of early American slavery entailed? Did not natural general revelation help change the mind toward a proper view of what scripture teaches on the evil of American slavery?