R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 378

Bill Nye’s Reasonable Man — The Central Worldview Clash of the Ham – Nye Debate

Last night’s debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham attracted a huge international audience and no shortage of controversy — even before it began. Bill Nye, whose main media presence is as “The Science Guy,” and Ken Ham, co-founder of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum, squared off in a true debate over one of the most important questions that the human mind can contemplate. That is no small achievement.

I enjoyed a front row seat at the debate, which took place even as a major winter storm raged outside, dumping considerable snow and ice and causing what the local police announced as a “Class Two” weather emergency. Inside the Creation Museum there was quite enough heat, and the debate took place without a hitch. Thankfully, it also took place without acrimony.

The initial controversy about the debate centered in criticism of Bill Nye for even accepting the invitation. Many evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne refuse to debate the issue, believing that any public debate offers legitimacy to those tho deny evolution. Nye was criticized by many leading evolutionists, who argued publicly that nothing good could come of the debate.

Interestingly, this points back to the famous debates over evolution that took place in nineteenth century England, when Anglican churchmen faced early evolutionary scientists in (mostly) civil public exchanges. Back then, it was the churchmen who were criticized by their peers for participation in the debate. Now, the table has turned, indicating something of the distance between the intellectual conditions then and now.

Of course, Bill Nye might have felt some moral obligation to debate the question, since he had launched a unilateral attack on creationist parents in a video that went viral last year. In that video Nye told creationist parents “if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.”

But if Nye had launched the attack, he did not arrive at the debate in a defensive mode. A protege of the late Carl Sagan and current CEO of the Planetary Society, Nye was in full form last night, wearing his customary bow-tie and immaculately dressed in a very expensive suit. He took notes with a very fine writing instrument. I like his style.

Ken Ham is a veteran debater on the issue of origins, and he was clearly prepared for the debate. Ham’s arguments were tight and focused, and his demeanor was uniformly calm and professional. The format allowed for a full expression of both arguments, along with spirited exchanges and questions submitted from the audience. What the 150 minute event lacked was any requirement that the debaters answer each other’s questions. That would have changed the way the debate concluded.

The central question of the debate was this: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham stuck to the question tenaciously. Nye, on the other hand, tried to personalize the debate and kept changing the question from creation to “Ken Ham’s creationism.” Ham was unfazed, and kept to his argument.

As the debate began, it was clear that Ham and Nye do not even agree on definitions. The most friction on definition came when Nye rejected Ham’s distinction between “historical science” and “observational science” out of hand. Nye maintained his argument that science is a unitary method, without any distinction between historical and observational modes. Ham pressed his case that science cannot begin without making certain assumptions about the past, which cannot be observed. Furthermore, Ham rightly insisted that observational science generally does not require any specific commitment to a model of historical science. In other words, both evolutionists and creationists do similar experimental science, and sometimes even side by side.

Nye’s main presentation contained a clear rejection of biblical Christianity. At several points in the debate he dismissed the Bible’s account of Noah and the ark as unbelievable. Oddly, he even made this a major point in his most lengthy argument. As any informed observer would have anticipated, Nye based his argument on the modern consensus and went to the customary lines of evidence, from fossils to ice rods. Ham argued back with fossil and geological arguments of his own. Those portions of the debate did not advance the arguments much past where they were left in the late nineteenth century, with both sides attempting to keep score by rocks and fossils.

In this light, the debate proved both sides right on one central point — if you agreed with Bill Nye you would agree with his reading of the evidence. The same was equally true for those who entered the room agreeing with Ken Ham. They would agree with his interpretation of the evidence.

That’s because 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 worlds. 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.

When asked how matter came to exist and how consciousness arose, Nye responded simply and honestly: “I don’t know.” Responding to the same questions, Ken Ham went straight to the Bible, pointing to the Genesis narrative as a full and singular answer to these questions. Nye went on the attack whenever Ham cited the Bible, referring to the implausibility of believing what he kept describing as “Ken Ham’s interpretation of a 3,000 year old book translated into American English.”

To Bill Nye, the idea of divine revelation is apparently nonsensical. He ridiculed the very idea.

This is where the debate was most important. Both men were asked if any evidence could ever force them to change their basic understanding. Both men said no. Neither was willing to allow for any dispositive evidence to change their minds. Both operate in basically closed intellectual systems. The main problem is that Ken Ham knows this to be the case, but Bill Nye apparently does not. Ken Ham was consistently bold in citing his confidence in God, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and in the full authority and divine inspiration of the Bible. He never pulled a punch or hid behind an argument. Bill Nye seems to believe that he is genuinely open to any and all new information, but it is clear that his ultimate intellectual authority is the prevailing scientific consensus. More than once he asserted a virtually unblemished confidence in the ability of modern science to correct itself. He steadfastly refused to admit that any intellectual presuppositions color his own judgment.

But the single most defining moments in the debate came as Bill Nye repeatedly cited the “reasonable man” argument in his presentation and responses. He cited Adolphe Quetelet’s famed l’homme moyen — “a reasonable man” as the measure of his intellectual authority. Writing in 1835, Quetelet, a French intellectual, made his “reasonable man” famous. The reasonable man is a man of intellect and education and knowledge who can judge evidence and arguments and function as an intellectual authority on his own two feet. The “reasonable man” is a truly modern man. Very quickly, lawyers and jurists seized on the “reasonable man” in making arguments before juries. A “reasonable man” would interpret the evidence and make a reasoned judgment, free from intellectual pressure.

Bill Nye repeatedly cited the reasonable man in making his arguments. He is a firm believer in autonomous human reason and the ability of the human intellect to solve the great problems of existence without any need of divine revelation. He spoke of modern science revealing “what we all can know” as it operates on the basis of natural laws. As Bill Nye sees it, Ken Ham has a worldview, but he does not. He referred to “Ken Ham’s worldview,” but claimed that science merely provides knowledge. He sees himself as the quintessential reasonable man, and he repeatedly dismissed Christian arguments as “not reasonable.”

In an unexpected turn, near the end of the event Nye even turned to make an argument against Christianity on grounds of theodicy. He asked Ham if it was “reasonable” to believe that God had privileged a personal revelation that was not equally accessible to all. Nye’s weakest argument had to do with his claim — made twice — that billions of religious people accept modern science. He provided a chart that included vast millions of adherents of other world religions and announced that they are religious but accept modern science. That is nonsense, of course. At least it is nonsense if he meant to suggest that these billions believe in evolution. That is hardly the case. Later, he lowered his argument to assert that these billions of people use modern technology. So, of course, do creationists. There are few facilities in the world more high-tech than the Creation Museum.

Nye is clearly not a fan of theistic evolution, since he argued that a purely natural argument should be quite enough for the “reasonable man.” He seemed to affirm a methodological agnosticism, since he sees the question of a “higher power” or “spiritual being” to be one of little intellectual consequence. He did argue that nature is a closed system and that natural selection can allow for absolutely no supernatural interference or influence. In this respect he sounded much like Stephen Hawking, who has argued that God may exist, but that there is nothing for him to do.

Ken Ham is a Young Earth Creationist (as am I), but the larger argument was over worldviews and the debate revealed the direct collision between evolution and the recognition of any historical authority within Genesis 1-11. As if to make that clear, in making one of his closing arguments Nye actually went back to cite “this problem of the ark.”

The ark is not the real problem — autonomous human reason is. Bill Nye is a true believer in human reason and the ability of modern science to deliver us. Humanity is just “one germ away” from extinction, he said, but science provides him with the joy of discovery and understanding.

The problem with autonomous human reason is made clear by the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 1:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” Romans 1:18-23 ESV

The problem with human reason is that it, along with every other aspect of our humanity, was corrupted by the fall. This is what theologians refer to as the “noetic effects of the fall.” We have not lost the ability to know all things, but we have lost the ability to know them on our own authority and power. We are completely dependent upon divine revelation for the answer to the most important questions of life. Our sin keeps us from seeing what is right before our eyes in nature. We are dependent upon the God who loves us enough to reveal himself to us — and to give us his Word.

As it turns out, the reality and authority of divine revelation, more than any other issue, was what the debate last night was all about. As the closing statements made very clear, Ken Ham understood that fact, but Bill Nye did not.

The central issue last night was really not the age of the earth or the claims of modern science. The question was not really about the ark or sediment layers or fossils. It was about the central worldview clash of our times and of any time — the clash between the worldview of the self-declared reasonable man and the worldview of the the sinner saved by grace.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

The New American Religion: The Rise of Sports and the Decline of the Church

Super Bowl XLVIII may have been a bust as a football game, but it was a blockbuster as a cultural event. The telecast of the event attracted a record 111.5 million viewers, making it the most-watched television event of all time. That record will most likely be eclipsed by the next Super Bowl, and the trajectory shows no signs of dissipating. America takes its sports seriously, and Americans take football with the most seriousness of them all.

In a real sense, big-time sports represent America’s new civic religion, and football is its central sacrament.

The relationship between sports and religion in America has always been close, and it has often been awkward. The “muscular Christianity” of a century ago has given way to a more recent phenomenon — the massive growth of involvement in sports at the expense of church activities and involvements. About fifteen years ago, the late John Cardinal O’Connor, then the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, lamented the fact that Little League baseball was taking his altar boys away on Sundays.

“Why is it religion that must always accommodate?,” asked the Archbishop. “Why must Little League and soccer league games be scheduled on Sunday mornings? Why create this conflict for kids or for their parents? Sports are generally considered good for kids. Church is good for kids.”

The Archbishop blamed secularization for this invasion of Sunday. “This is the constant erosion, the constant secularization of our culture, that I strongly believe to be a serious mistake.”

So the Cardinal took on Little League and youth league soccer in New York City. And he lost. Nevertheless, he was right about the problem. The massive rise of sports within the culture is a sign and symptom of the secularization of the larger society.

New evidence for this pattern comes from academics Chris Beneke and Arthur Remillard in an essay recently published in The Washington Post. Writing with Super Bowl XLVIII in view, Beneke and Remillard note:

“American sports fans have forged imperishable bonds with the people, places and moments that define their teams. You might even call this attachment religious. But that would be unfair — to sports.”

In other words, the attachment many Americans now have to sports teams far exceeds attachment to religious faith. Any religious faith.

The two academics then make their central case:

“While teams and fans are building powerful, cohesive communities — think Red Sox Nation or the legions of University of Alabama faithful who greet one another with “Roll Tide” — churches are losing followers. According to a 2012 survey by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and Duke University, 20 percent of Americans “claimed they had no religious preference,” compared with an unaffiliated population of 8 percent in 1990. Roughly two out of three Americans, a 2012 Pew report noted, are under the impression that religion is losing influence in the country.”

That impression is growing because it is true to the facts. Religion is losing ground and losing influence in American society. The fastest-growing segment of the American public in terms of religious identification is the “nones,” designating those who identify with no religious tradition at all. At the same time, a religious dedication to sports has been growing. While correlation does not prove causation, the links between these two developments are haunting.

Interestingly, Beneke, who teaches history at Bentley University, and Remillard, who teaches religious studies at St. Francis University, document the dramatic increase in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be sports fans. Just a half-century ago, only three in ten Americans identified themselves as sports fans. Fast forward to 2012 and the percentage is greater than 60 percent. At the same time, church attendance and other marks of religious activity (especially the number of hours each week devoted to church activities) have fallen sharply.

Beneke and Remillard describe the current picture in vivid terms: “Modern sports stadiums function much like great cathedrals once did, bringing communities together and focusing their collective energy. This summer, the Archdiocese of New York is expected to outline plans to close or merge some of its 368 parishes; 26 Catholic schools in the archdiocese have ceased operation. By contrast, the city and the state of New Jersey spent hundreds of millions to build new baseball and football stadiums.”

Cardinal O’Connor would no doubt see the pattern and lament it, but a good many evangelical Christians seem both unmoved and unconcerned. The problem is quite ecumenical, in this respect. The youth minister or pastor at your local evangelical church is almost sure to tell you the same story. Team sports activities or other forms of organized athletics have taken many evangelical families away from church activities. Many children and adolescents know very little of church involvements, but they and their parents (and often their grandparents as well) would not miss a scheduled practice, much less a game or competitive event. The same is increasingly true of spectator sports.

Beneke and Remillard conclude by asserting that “when it comes to the passionate attachments that sustain interest and devotion, it’s time to acknowledge that sports have gained the edge. And they show no sign of relinquishing the lead.”

In the larger society, this is most certainly the case. This dramatic shift could only come to pass if the larger culture has been largely secularized. In this case, secularization does not necessarily mean the disappearance of religious faith but merely the demotion of religious involvement and identification to a level lower than those granted to sports.

Americans may not know who their god is, but you can be sure most know who their team is.

Super Bowl XLIX is scheduled to be played next year in the cathedral currently known as the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona. Let the pilgrimage begin.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Chris Beneke and Arthur Remillard, “Is Religion Losing Ground to Sports?,” The Washington Post, Friday, January 31, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinion...

 

The Briefing 02-04-14

1) Debating the debate: Ken Ham and Billy Nye debate controversial before it starts

Evolution vs. creationism | Bill Nye The Science guy takes on Creation Museum founder, Louisville Courier-Journal (Chris Kenning)

Debate poses question: Creation or Evolution? WDRB (Lawrence Smith)

2) Facebook revolution began 10 years ago today

Facebook Turns 10: The Mark Zuckerberg Interview, Bloomberg Businessweek (Brad Stone and Sarah Frier)

How Facebook changed our lives, USA Today (Marco della Cavo)

6 new facts about Facebook, Pew Research Center (Aaron Smith)

3) Gallup study shows the Bible Belt is still there, but slowly slipping

Mississippi Most Religious State, Vermont Least Religious, Gallup (Frank Newport)

The Briefing 02-03-14

1) How much do Super Bowl advertisers think your attention is worth? $4 Million for 30 seconds

Super Bowl kicks off world’s richest ad game, Financial Times (Emily Steel)

In Las Vegas, Putting a Lot on the Line for the Super Bowl, New York Times (John Drape)

2) The Religion of Sport: They don’t know who their God is, but they know who their team is

Is religion losing ground to sports? Washington Post (Chris Beneke and Arthur Remillard)

3) Transgender rights leads to organized cultural insanity in Maine

Transgender student’s rights violated by bathroom ban, Maine court rules, The Guardian (Associated Press)

In Texas, jail confronts issue of inmate safety, Associated Press (Ramit Plushnick-Masti)

4) Kentucky receives $200 million from gambling revenue, while 200,000 citizens at risk of addiction

Kentucky’s problem gambling addressed, Courier-Journal (Sheldon S. Schaefer)

Ask Anything: Weekend Edition 02-01-14

Your questions this week:

1) Is ‘Word of Faith’ doctrine a good reason to leave a church?

2) Why would God create people who are doomed to hell?

3) Should I date someone from another denomination?

4) Why don’t Evangelicals consider surrogacy to be ethically acceptable, like adoption?

Call with your questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: 1-877-505-2058

 

The Briefing 01-31-14

1) Eric Holder, opposed to death penalty, will seek death penalty in Boston Bombing case

Feds seek death penalty for Boston bombing suspect Tsarnaev, CNN (Catherine E. Shoichet)

2) Stem cell breakthrough refutation of what science said was absolute

Stem cell breakthrough may be simple, fast, cheap, CNN (Elizabeth Landau)

3) Ultrasound study reveals willingness of abortion seekers to overcome moral defenses

Seeing ultrasound rarely changes abortion plans: study, Reuters (Shereen Jegtvig)

4) Even states who want to integrate transgender students are finding it impossible

Transgender Students Get New Options in California, Wall Street Journal (Alejandro Lazo)

The Briefing 01-30-14

1) State of the Union: It’s not what happened, but what didn’t happen

State of the Union: Obama Seeks to Narrow Income Gap, Wall Street Journal (Carol E. Lee and Peter Nicholas)

Hardened, Obama Strikes Tough Tone for Modest Agenda, New York Times (Carl Hulse)

2) Religious roots an embarrassment to modern liberals

Remember the religious roots of liberal thought, Financial Times (Larry Siedentop)

3) Is the United States entering a new liberal era?

America is becoming more liberal, Washington Post (Steve Rosenthal)

The Briefing 01-29-14

1) Where will the Church of England stand when the UK legalizes gay marriage?

Bishops must reject these wicked homophobic views, The Guardian (Andrew Brown)

2) Africa must be “liberated from literal interpretation of the Bible”

COMMENTARY: The church’s role in, and against, homophobia across Africa, Religion News Service (Gay Clark Jennings)

Activists mourn as India’s Supreme Court stands firm on gay-sex ban, Reuters

3) If medical marijuana is legitimate, it’s up to the medical community, not the political community

Medical marijuana headed to Florida ballot after Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision, Miami Herald (Marc Caputo and Mary Ellen Klas)

The Briefing 01-28-14

1) The significance and history of the State of the Union address

Obama Pursuing a Modest Agenda in State of Union, New York Times (Peter Baker)

Democrats Debate How to Discuss Inequality Ahead of Obama Speech, Wall Street Journal (Colleen McCain Nelson)

2) Personal character and public leadership cannot be separated

Is the Fifth Republic Burning?, New York Times (Robert Zaretsky)

3) Does mass gay wedding at Grammys really prove we’ve lost?

Grammys say ‘we do,’ get political with mass wedding, Fox News (Hollie McKay)

Give up, gay marriage haters: Grammys mass wedding proves you’ve lost, Los Angeles Times (Robin Abcarian)

4) Biblical submission is now controversial

GOP congressman’s book: ‘The wife is to voluntarily submit’ to her husband, Washington Post (Aaron Blake)

The Briefing 01-27-14

1) Considering the tragedy of “brain death” and the gift of human life

Brain-dead Texas woman taken off ventilator, CNN (Caleb Hellerman. Jason Morris and Matt Smith)

My sister Terri Schiavo was alive like Jahi McMath, Washington Times (Bobby Schindler)

2) Contraceptive Mandate: “Like a picture you can look at and see two totally different things”

Supreme Court blocks contraceptives rule for religious groups, Los Angeles Times (David G Savage)

Did Little Sisters of the Poor Win or Lose at the Supreme Court?, Slate.com (Emily Bazelon)

3) President Obama: “Kids with structure have a better time of it.”

Going the Distance, The New Yorker (David Remnick)

4) Vincent Asaro arrested 30 years after “Goodfellas” crime

Arrest Made in Fabled ’78 ‘Goodfellas’ Heist, New York Times (Joseph Goldstein)

Feds in NYC charge 5 in ‘Goodfellas’ sequel, Associated Press (Tom Hays)

Special Event: Faith and Freedom in the Public Square

Call Now to leave your question for Ask Anything Weekend Edition: 1-877-505-2058