While I could comment generally on the debate as a whole, my focus will be on a few things that Bill Nye said in the debate that really stood out to me (problematically). I am sure to watch this debate numerous times, however, and therefore may write another post that is more in-depth and thorough at a later time.
First, what seems to be Nye’s primary concern is that the U.S.A. keep on producing scientists that will be able to further the technological and sociological progress for the future good of our nation. His main contention seemed to be that those who hold to the biblical model of creation will only hinder this future progress. There are, however, two problems with Nye’s concern. First, Ken Ham clearly demonstrated that creationists can be and are good scientists that further the progress of discovery and invention for the good of society. No doubt Ham could’ve listed more Scientists than he did if time permitted. Apparently, Nye thinks that one must hold to an atheistic evolutionary worldview in order to think critically, research, discover, invent, develop, advance, etc. Such is absolutely ridiculous, and as far as I see it, is nothing but evolutionary snobbery. Second, and more foundational, is that Nye’s atheistic evolutionary worldview cannot substantiate such a conviction and concern for science, society, and the future. What do I mean? Simple. When Nye says that we need to be working toward the progressive good of our future, he is assuming that there is a purpose or meaning to life! He is assuming that we’re hear for a reason, and that reason is to progress toward the good (whatever that may be)! But why Nye? If evolution is true, then we’re the product of mindless matter, blind chance. We are an accident, and there’s no purpose or meaning to life. We’re simply here. I’m thankful that Nye wants to further the progress of science and technology for the good of our society, but he’s got one foot in the Christian’s biblical worldview when he says that. According to the Bible, God created all things, and therefore there is purpose or meaning to life (Gen. 1:1, 26-27; Ps. 33:6-9; Rev. 4:11). It is this biblical foundation that allows for consistent scientific endeavor.
Second, when speaking about “survival of the fittest,” Nye said it has to do with those who “fit in” with nature. I can’t help but think that this amounts to saying that not every human being is equal in dignity. The more one “fits in,” the more dignity that person has. Those who are more dignified will continue to survive, whereas those who are less dignified will eventually disappear. It is of course a natural conclusion from the evolutionary worldview, but that’s the problem!
In conclusion, let us remember what the thesis of the debate was: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” In answer to the question, the creation model of origins tells us that we are not here by blind chance and mindless matter, but by God’s sovereign power and decree. Therefore, in contrast to the atheistic evolutionary worldview, life actually has meaning or purpose. This is all the more reason to strive toward furthering our scientific and technological progress in the future for the good of society, and all to the glory of God (Rev. 4:11). The ultimate reason why man embraces evolutionary thinking is because they hate the idea of being accountable to God; but they can only fool themselves for so long (Ps. 14:1; Rom. 1:18-23; Heb. 4:13; 9:27; Rev. 21:8). What the evolutionary worldview gives us is not progress, but destruction: destruction of the family; destruction of unborn babies; destruction of moral standards; and given enough time (though we need not wait millions or billions of years for this one), destruction of society as we know it. In short, any good that evolutionary scientists do for society, they do it by standing on the biblical worldview, whether they realize it or not.