Well, I was planning on writing up a more thorough analysis of the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate sometime soon. I still might; but a lot of what I intended on discussing has already been written by Paul Jenkins, blogging over at Laodecia Press. In his article, “Why Bill Nye Lost the Creation Debate,” Jenkins highlights a number of “face palms” that Nye committed during the debate, such as demonstrating an ignorance of the Bible, which was sure to be discussed at some point during the debate, and various inconsistencies in his own worldview. Basically, Jenkins picks up on the foundational issue of the debate, showing how the naturalistic presuppositions cannot hold water. In the end, while atheists/evolutionists might want to further the good of our society, as Nye repeatedly stated as his concern, their worldview simply won’t allow it. I conclude with these words by Jenkins:
Ham rightly framed the debate as not only impacting our view on origins, but also knowledge, morality, science, marriage, and life itself. If you believe that you are just really old soup, there is no transcendent purpose to your life. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. There is no truth, no objective, unchanging morality, no foundation for logic, and no foundation for the scientific method – namely the uniformity of nature.