“Is creation a viable model of origins?” will be the topic of the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate on February 4 at the Creation Museum. Internet Monk has a rundown of the gory details, I will share just a couple of brief thoughts below.
There was a time as a new blogger that I wrote on science and faith, and tagged the posts in order to attract the attention of atheists and bolster my page view numbers. That is an exhausting activity. Good science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Good science seeks to answer questions in a logical and reasonable manner. In short, to believe that God spoke the cosmos into existence is not reasonable. Is it reasonable to believe that the holy Son of God would willingly take our place, receiving the wrath of God after living a perfect life, and offer the reward of righteousness to the undeserving? Even the scriptures describe that type of love as one that surpasses understanding. Science does the best it can with what it has, and I have no qualm with good science. In fact I rather enjoy it.
Debating the age of the earth and the mechanisms of creation has nothing to do with good science. For that matter the arguments are only loosely based in scripture. I just recently described this very argument as purely academic. Chaplain Mike is right when he speculates no good can come of this. The title of this post is based on Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” 2 Timothy 2:23 is very similar, but add “you know they breed quarrels.”
Ken Ham is not a scientist. Bill Nye has agreed to a debate at the Creation Museum. Next thing you know GQ Magazine will be interviewing Phil Robinson.