I couldn’t watch it.
I just couldn’t do it.
Those of you who did watch it… I know you had your reasons. I respect that. I’m not criticizing anyone here.
It’s just that, after so many years of watching fruitless debates in the church, I may be constitutionally incapable of watching Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham engage in a debate, the outcome of which is all but predetermined. (Side effects may include headaches, blurred vision, hiccups, vomiting, and hair loss.)
It’s not that I don’t think creationism and evolution are significant matters (though I honestly don’t spend very much time thinking about them). It’s that a debate about creationism vs. evolution between an agnostic and a man who funded a museum dedicated to creationism doesn’t hold much promise for fruitful dialogue. One party is not willing to acknowledge that God exits. How, then, could he possibly come to the position that God created anything? The other party has an epistemological commitment to scripture whereby anything that he understands to conflict with scripture must be wrong. How, then, could he possibly come to the position that anything the Bible says is incorrect?
Is the purpose of a debate like this to find common ground? That can’t happen given the presuppositions of the two parties. Is its purpose, then, for one party to prove another wrong? That can’t happen either, for the same reason. So the only real result can be that partisans of each side of the debate receive a set of arguments based upon the presuppositions that gave rise to the debate to start with.
Am I wrong? I admit, I didn’t watch it. But I don’t see how it could have gone any other way.
I’m probably wrong.
Let me know what you think.