750 New Planets

Pretty sweet article from CNN. Before now, scientists only knew of 1000 of the planets God created. Well they just discovered 750 more! I believe these planets were placed here for the sole purpose of us discovering them and realizing how much detail the Creator had when He created the universe. God gave us a pretty sweet backyard for discovery and I think it is awesome we humans value it enough to have organizations like NASA to explore it! 
Read article

The Wazooloo Response to the Ham/Nye Debate

Ian Juby did a better job of breaking down the debate than I ever could have! I wish Ian had been up there with Ham or at least mic'd into Ham's ear! As Nye requested in the debate, Ian gives actual examples of critters swimming up through multiple rock layers (layers were mud at the time) leaving tunnels behind. This episode is chalk full of good responses to some of Nye's unanswered assertions and refutes or better explains his supposed evidence. 
If only this commentary could be viewed by the 5 million people that watched the debate! Watch, like and share this episode of Genesis Week! 
Watch the video here! And subscribe to wazooloo, Ian's YouTube channel.

Nye vs. Ham Debate Dissected

Most estimate that at least 5 million people viewed the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate on Feb 4. Over 2.5 million people clicked the "play" button on YouTube from 190 different countries all interested to hear what the men had to say. This figure was significantly more than those who did the same for the President's recent State of the Union Address which also streamed on YouTube. Many of the 2.5 million viewers were not alone when they watched; there were many church gatherings, college events, and gatherings of family and friends across the nation. The debate trended number one on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. There was a lot of interest in the debate, to put it mildly. The origins debate is far from over in this nation. 

Why did this debate take place?

As I previously stated on my blog, both men had a message they wanted to get across to their target audience in order to work towards their respective goals. Bottom line up front (BLUF): both men succeeded. Nye's message was that science is a beautiful and exciting field to study. That we need young people to embrace future challenges and produce solutions with science. His target audience was Christians, voters in particular, who might be on the fence on the evolution topic. Ham had three target audiences with differing goals for each: young earth creationists--encouraging them to be "comfortable with science", old earth or theistic evolutionists who are believers--encouraging them to trust the Bible over secular science, and lastly he targeted people "on the outside" (as Nye put it) and encouraging them to seek answers in the Bible. I strongly believe that Ham was at a strategic disadvantage because he had to appeal to Bible believing Christians that sided with Nye as well as his other targets. This forced him to spend less time dealing with science and more time on what the Bible actually says and why we trust it. . Now, I am not trying to say that it is wrong for believers to side with Bill Nye the "Humanist Guy" on this topic, but I am sure it must be a little disconcerting for those believers to oppose and ridicule the one preaching the gospel and support the one representing humanism.
Obviously neither men were going to change the others mind on these issues. They were appealing to their target audiences and Ken Ham's target happened to be everyone.

What Ham did well:

• Within the first few minutes of the debate Ham completely refuted Nye's notion that creationists cannot do good science. Before and throughout the debate Nye claimed that creationism is dangerous to our nation's scientific future. Ham used several video clips of creationists who practice science in the secular world. The strongest perhaps was Dr. Raymond Damadian, the co-inventor of the MRI machine who very emphatically expressed his belief in a 6,000 year old universe. Strangely, even after testimony from Dr. Damadian and other creationist scientists, Nye still continued to claim that creationists cannot do good science work. I suppose this is because this was Nye's primary point in the debate. After refuting this claim, Ham chose not to readdress it again.
• A primary point of emphasis by Ham was to display, through describing historical vs observational science, that there is a belief aspect to Nye's evolutionary thinking. Ham said, "There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past. Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can't prove either way observationally, because all we've got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews."
  “There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
  Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
  “There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
  Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
  “There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
  Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
• Ham out-did Nye with his presentation slides and media. The bumbling, science denying idiot, as many refer to Ham, presented a very modern, hi-tech display of his position. Nye's was effective as well, but as Michael Schulson from the Daily Beast stated, "He spent 10 minutes delivering a dry lecture on geological sediments and biogeography, using the kind of PowerPoint slides that a high school junior might make for his AP Biology class. Ham, seemingly aware that debate is a form of entertainment, and that entertainment thrives on human stories, presented testimonial videos from engineers and biology PhDs who hold creationist views." Michael's article is very entertaining and I suggest you read it as well. He observed that the clearly smarter guy on stage was "oddly" the one claiming the earth is 6000 years old. 
• In my mind, he who presents the gospel wins the debate every time. I know this is not true in many other people's minds, but allow me to summarize what Ham said after the debate. He said that nowhere is it stated that man's word will not return to him void, but it says that God's word will not return to Him void and that his gospel is the power of God unto salvation. As a Christian, I completely agree with him. Few wanted to hear a couple guys spout off scientific facts alone for 2 hours, anyway, so it was good that Ham presented the whole story.
• Ham had answers to Nye's wild curiosity over the origin of matter and the origin of human consciousness. Nye did a good job making his lack of answers sound exciting and romantic I believe people enjoy that type of attitude--to a degree. However, those two questions are loaded with repercussions: Why am I here? What is my purpose? Who/what am I? The two most memorable points in the debate came back-to-back after Nye had expressed his excited yet clueless wonder to these core questions. "Well, Bill, I have to tell you, there is a book out there, that does document where consciousness/matter came from." I believe evolution and atheism provide little to no hope to the human condition and reveals nothing to the purpose of life, and I thought Ham did a good job using subtle humor to contrast the two perspectives.  

What Ham should have done better:

• Ken Ham's presentation had smatterings of scientific evidence of the bible being an accurate document. He explained how if the Bible were true, there are certain predictions that can be made and tested. He stated there should be evidence of a global flood, evidence of the Tower of Babel, one human race, and that creatures should produce after their own kind rather than produce new kinds. This type of information took up about 1% of his presentation time. Even after Nye challenged him to provide scientific evidence or predictions with his creation model, Ham did not oblige. Just 5 more minutes spent outlining a couple of the predictions and evidences he had listed on a slide he flashed occasionally, would have added significantly to his argument. He encouraged people to investigate and research the topics on the list for themselves--a great idea--but it seemed like he did not prepare to speak to any of the topics. This disappointed many creationists, myself included, and reinforced the skeptics perspective that "there is no scientific evidence for creation."
• At one point in the debate he tried to explain how a certain bacteria had not evolved a new metabolic capability as evolutionists claimed, but rather, already had the capability hardwired into their DNA. He stumbled over his words and seemed very uncomfortable speaking to the specifics of the study. I was not surprised by this as Ham typically leaves the science lectures and research to his PhD staff members and focuses more on the biblical aspects when he speaks to his typically Christian audience.      

What Nye did well:

• Nye was very enthusiastic and did a good job of sounding open to new ideas creationists could provide evidence for. He stated that is we could give them just one fish that had managed to swim up from it's supposed sedimentary layer into another, evolution would fall apart and scientists would essentially throw him a parade out of gratitude for his amazing contribution. Ham should have obliged and presented him with the coelacanth and scheduled his parade. The coelacanth (pronounced SEEL-uh-kanth) was long believed to be the missing link between fish and land animals because of its fleshy fins and because it supposedly lived 410 million years ago. When I recently approached a living coelecanth off the coast of Africa for interview it declined to comment. The half leg half fins must have given the fish the ability to swim through all the layers. Contrary to what Nye said, evolution wouldn't fall apart with an out of order fossil or even thousands of out of order fossils. Evolution is not good science since it cannot be disproved. This is because the "theory" just rolls with the punches, saying, "Wow, who knew! Apparently this fossil had nothing to do with the origin of land dwellers." Or, "Wow, it is incredible that these fish have survived unchanged for millions of years in this tiny little colony while the rest of them sprouted legs and walked off." You see, Nye knew that whatever Ham threw his way, he could explain away. The evolution model requires belief and creativity in far greater quantity than evidence.  
• Nye used a very good debate tactic in that he steam-rolled Ham. When one can quickly provide numerous objections, each of which requiring a long drawn out response, you will not get a response. He did this with numerous topics such as tree ages, distant starlight, and ice cores. These are issues that require long, technical papers to properly discuss. Some may view this tactic as cheap, but I don't believe it had any malicious intent behind it. He was merely naming off data as evidence of the universe being old. Ham should have done the same with young earth evidences such as the Grand Canyon, ocean salinity levels, the receding lunar orbit, planetary magnetic fields or any of the topics listed on his evidence slide.
• Nye did a good job pushing his agenda: more funding for science. I strongly support this goal as well. However, if Nye has it his way, there will be continued censorship of one side of the origins debate (obviously intelligent design is the censored side). This would not be good science, but state funded religious conquest. Luckily Ken Ham is right; we can disagree on matters of the past and still work together using science in the present.
• Nye did a good job of pointing out that Ham did not present good scientific evidence for a young earth.

What Nye did poorly:

• Perhaps this belongs in the category of what he did well: Nye did a good job of insulting the intelligence of Kentuckians. He basically said they preferred to have a cute little creation museum rather than a center for nuclear medicine. This claim was actually fact checked to be false anyway. He was already at odd with most people in the audience and he should not have alienated them more.
• I am still not sure on the point of his skull slide. He presented a slide with dozens of drawings of ape skulls and one that he claimed was human. He seemed to want the crowd of non-experts on skeletons to try to identify the human one. I believe his idea was to have people use their incredible human intellect to discover they were no different than animals. At least that non- experts would find that their heads are indistinguishable from apes on a screen 20-50 meters in distance. If Nye had an ape use his brain to pick out the human skull I would have been impressed.
• He was demeaning to Ham. Again, this may fall in the category of what he did well, depending on your perspective. In a debate that was very cordial and respectful, Nye's frequent "Ham's story, Ham's Flood" labeling of the biblical account was intentionally rude. He was not going to win points with those on Ham's side. He also kept referring to mainstream scientists as "those of us on the outside", an obvious attempt to make creationists sound like cultists. Though this is tame compared to the digs creationists are accustomed to receiving, I felt like they stuck out in this spirited by cordial debate.
• He did not do a good job of presenting the whole story about tiktaalik. He explained that based off the evolutionary model they made a prediction that they would find a fish growing legs in a certain rock layer. They found tiktaalik, a fish with boney, fleshy fins in the rock layer they searched. Nye did not mention that they have since found tracks laid down by land animals with fully formed toes "millions of years" before tiktaalik. This makes his claim invalid. Ham should have been prepared to call him out on this topic.

In perhaps the most compelling moment of the debate, Nye and Ham were confronted with the question. “How did consciousness come from matter?”
Nye replied bluntly with, “I don’t know. That is a great mystery.”
“Bill, I want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from,” Ham said, referring to the Bible, and adding that he believes man was created “in God’s image.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99

Final Thoughts

Scientists should not try to censor or shun creationist ideas and contributions. Two conflicting models or view points when compared to each other can only help to refine them. 
Although I thought Ham did an ok job of presenting creation as a viable model of origins, judging by the responses I have heard, he must not have done a good job. Ham did however present the gospel message and as Mark Spence from the daily YouTube show "The Comfort Zone" put it, "It's sad to see that people (Christians) will try to argue point by point or evidence for evidence, forgetting about the gospel. And that the gospel is the power of God onto salvation."
      
Perhaps in the future we will see a more scientific debate between say Ian Juby and an evolutionist. However, it is highly unlikely that any debate in the near future will generate this much publicity and viewership. This was the creationist's golden ticket. Ham made some strong arguments and showed that the Bible has answers to all of the pressing questions in regards to origins and the human condition. However, diepite a few great moments and points by Ham, the idea that was reinforced for most of creation's skeptics was that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth. Now there were over 250,000 hits on the Answers in Genesis web site immediately following the debate, so perhaps those that were curious, took Ham's invitation to investigate the evidence for themselves. As For everyone else, I know I am even more determined to present them with evidence for creation and against evolution.

     

Creation Debate Tonight

Very cool article about the debate tonight! It is expected to draw well over a million viewers. Learn more

Watch live

The Great Debate

Some are calling it "the debate of the decade". Others believe it is the worst idea of the decade. Bill Nye "the Science Guy" has agreed to debate renown creationist and Answers in Genesis President and CEO Ken Ham. The debate has garnered massive attention in the creation/evolution realm as well as from the mainstream media. The debate begins at 7:30 ET on Tuesday, February 4th at the Creation Museum in Kentucky with the topic: Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era? 

Why would Nye make the supposed terrible mistake of sharing a stage with someone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old? What does he have to gain from debating Ham? Renown atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists on the grounds that it gives the public the idea that there still is an origins debate and and that it puts creationism on the same scientific platform as "real science". Atheists around the world and many evolutionists believe Nye is making a horrible blunder. But why is Nye doing this?
Bill Nye the Science Guy was a show geared towards teens and preteens in the 1990s that had a very catchy theme song, interesting facts, experiments, and plenty of evolutionary thinking. Nye has also come out more recently with a viral video titled, "Creationism is not Appropriate for Children", that reveals a lot about what motivates him. He suggests that "denial of evolution is unique to the United States" And he points out that “We are the world’s most advanced technological… I mean you could say Japan, but generally the United States is where most of the innovation still happens.” He then appeals to parents:“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution, and live in your [waves hands around] world that is 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, uh– we need engineers! People who can build stuff, solve problems.”  
Nye's agenda is obviously to convince people, especially young people, to become "believers" in evolution for the betterment of our society. He certainly did not use sound logic in his video which probably has some anti-creationists a little worried. Certainly the US has significant numbers of creationists, with over a third of our population believing in creation. If we are the global leaders in innovation and science, perhaps this isn't the crippling situation Nye suggests. Origins science has nothing to do with engineering. Besides, science thrives when people with differing views examine the same evidence and falsify one another's hypothesises. Good scientists should welcome other views, not silence them.

Ham has always focused on the young people in his ministry efforts. Answers in Genesis has a curriculum for homeschoolers and private schools that re-enforce the Christian worldview. He wrote the book "Already Gone" which appeals to parents to instill this worldview and biblical thinking in their kids so they don't stray from their faith when they are exposed to secular thinking. Although Ham is not the most scientifically qualified AIG representative, he is very persuasive and has a strong supporting cast of PhD representatives from various fields in his corner.

There are sure to be plenty of entertaining moments, good one-liners, and substantive debate to be seen on Tuesday. So gather your kids around, watch the live streaming event and listen to what these men have to say in defense of what they believe.

I had hoped to be in attendance for the debate, but the 800 tickets were sold within the first 2 minutes of availability. Instead, my wife and I plan to watch the debate at home with some friends. I will write all about it here on my blog.