WHY
I AM NOT OF THE VIEW OF BILL NYE OR KEN HAM (OR NAPARC CHRISTIANITY) by J.
Parnell McCarter
Like many others, I watched the recent debate between Bill
Nye and Ken Ham. The most obvious
conclusion I came away with was how different my views are from Bill
Nye’s. But I also came away reminded of
how it also differs in some important respects from Ken Ham’s.
Bill Nye lives in a world that pretends there are no moral
absolutes and that God has not revealed these moral absolutes in the
Bible. Rather, he holds to a
naturalistic philosophy which would have us believe our knowledge of the
universe should be approached following the assumption that this is simply a
materialistic world where things came into being by chance involving
naturalistic forces. In such a world as
he conceives, there is no sound basis for morally absolute rights and wrongs. Someone’s killing Bill Nye would be no more
wrong than killing a cow to eat for dinner tonight if this philosophy is
followed to its logical end. But if Bill
Nye were so being killed, as Jews were during the Nazi holocaust, I seriously
doubt he would regard it as so morally neutral.
Frankly, I dismiss Bill Nye’s worldview out of hand. There are moral absolutes. God has supernaturally revealed them in the
Bible. Jesus Christ did rise from the
dead, as testified by many faithful witnesses.
There will be a Day of Judgment where those moral absolutes will be the
standard by which God judges humanity.
If Bill Nye continues to pretend that we do not live in the world
revealed in the Bible, he will have a rude awakening on that Day of
Judgment. And my concluding response to
Bill Nye is this declaration from God’s word: “The fool hath said in his heart,
there is no God.”
At first blush, it would seem I do agree with Ken Ham’s
views. After all, we agree the Bible is God’s
infallible revelation to mankind and the universe was created in the space of 6
literal days approximately 6,000 years ago, and both of us agree in the
veracity of the creation account of man and his fall through sin. But on closer examination, there are yet a
number of important differences of view remaining between Ken Ham and me. Most importantly, I think there is a
difference of view relating to the extent of the depravity of man. Based upon hearing his presentation and
reading some of his writings, I am not persuaded Ken Ham and I are fully agreed
upon the extent to which man in his natural state is totally opposed to the
moral law of God as summarized in the Ten Commandments, and the enmity of man
against God’s revelation in general. Ken
Ham did not make clear in his presentation how much Americans are opposing that
moral law. It seems to me he did not
make sufficiently clear how they are dead in their trespasses and sins unless
God supernaturally regenerates them by His free and sovereign grace. Nor do I sense Ken Ham recognizes man’s moral
obligations fully, which probably accounts for his lack of understanding of the
extent of man’s depravity. For example,
if Ken Ham realized this, he would realize how even keeping his Creation Museum
open on the Lord’s Day is rebellion against God. It seems to me Bill Nye and the American
audience who heard Ken Ham did not come away from the debate realizing the
truly dire situation we are in as a people, and how we need to plea for God’s
mercy in Jesus Christ. In addition, I am
not persuaded Ken Ham (or Bill Nye) have a thoroughly
realistic view regarding science and how we obtain knowledge of the past. The reality is that most human knowledge
relating to the past depends not upon the department of science but the
department of history. How do I know about the fall of Sodom, the conquests of
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar’s exploits, the Battle of Hastings, or the
American Revolution led by George Washington?
Or how do I know about the Great Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 or the 1906
San Francisco earthquake and fire? Science, no; history, yes.
The department of science is an excellent tool for attaining knowledge
of the present, but of very limited use in attaining knowledge of the
past. I am not asserting that science is
of no help in attaining knowledge of the past, but I am not persuaded Ken Ham
or Bill Nye have done full justice in comprehending or explaining the extent of
the limitations of science and the reliance on history (especially divinely
inspired history) when it comes to attaining knowledge of the past. Finally, I am not persuaded by Ken Ham’s
assumptions regarding the extent to which observed natural phenomena relate to
the Noahic Flood, certainly not assuming uniformity
of natural laws. Ken Ham’s is a
hypothesis which may be true, but scripture certainly does not settle the
question, and I am not persuaded observed phenomena corroborate the conclusion
either. Much of what we observe in the
natural world may relate to any of the following periods and events:
·
God’s creation ex nihilo of a fully functioning
universe which displays age
·
God’s altering the created order
subsequent to the Fall in miraculous ways
·
God’s special miraculous workings on
the material world since initial creation (of which the Noahic
Flood is but one possibility)
I think observed natural phenomena suggest far more relates
to the above and less to Ken Ham’s hypotheses relating to the Noahic Flood. I
think there is reason to believe some Seventh Day Adventist theological
assumptions which Ken Ham has imbibed from geologist George McCready
Price affect his approach in a detrimental way.
I am dubious of Ken Ham’s explanations in explaining the natural world
we observe, and I think Bill Nye raises credible objections to many of Ken
Ham’s explanations.
While I am at this business of differentiating my views from
others, I will take the opportunity finally to express the difference in my
view from NAPARC Christianity (http://www.naparc.org/),
while I have the attention of some.
NAPARC operates on the assumption that man is not obliged to embrace the
Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards. It assumes people are qualified to be
ecclesiastical officers who do not embrace these doctrines fully. I quite disagree. The Bible teaches the
Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards. God does not give the Church of Jesus Christ
a multiple choice option as to whether these doctrines are true or not, and it
does not give the Church liberty not to uphold them. They are true and Biblical and they must be
upheld, according to God’s word. Those
who do not adhere to them are not qualified to be ecclesiastical officers. Those who reject them are not even qualified
to vote in ecclesiastical elections. And
Christians have no right to condone, vote for, or ordain church officers who
reject these true Biblical doctrines.
Finally, those who do not embrace them are not yet ready to vote or
serve in civil office.
I am all for debate of the various viewpoints, so let the
debates continue. God has promised the
truth will prevail.