“Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”
In a debate last week, Ken Ham, an Aussie and the CEO of Answers in Genesis, defended the Biblical view of the world’s origins, while Bill Nye (the Science Guy!) spoke of science.
Ham, a born-again Christian, stressed early on in the debate that science is an essential part of our lives. To illustrate his point, Ham cited many Christian scientists who had contributed extraordinarily to the field, such as Dr. Raymond Damadian, who invented the MRI Scanner.
What Ham did combat were the connotations and the vague nature of the word “science” used today. He spent a portion of his presentation defining the word in terms of “observational science” and “historical science.”
The difference between the two terms is that one concerns the evidence we see in front of us now (observational science), and the other relates to the events that actually occurred in the past (historical science).
Ham used these definitions to explain how evolution is merely a guess at how we were made. We weren’t there, so we don’t know, we can only interpret what we see today. And often, evidence is misinterpreted.
Science is vital to understanding our world. It is an essential tool. It’s when people take God out of science, or make science out to be an enemy of God, that things tend to get a little sketchy.
Schools are teaching our students a theory. I feel as if that word gets (intentionally) omitted a lot of the time. We have to remember that evolution is but a theory, and many scientific theories have been wrong.
There are those who believe we simply crawled out of nothing one day, with no way to know why we’re here, or what will happen afterward. In that line of thinking, really, we’re all just accidents, and although we’re alive, we don’t know why.
Some argue teaching creationism goes against the logical thinking of science, that the world is in fact billions of years old. But Ham stressed there’s “nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a young universe.”
Another argument against teaching creationism in schools is that it is considered “religious.”
A case for creation: Say we stumbled upon a watch (or some kind of mechanical device unfamiliar to us) in a field.
When pondering the watch’s origins, we wouldn’t wonder, “Hmmm…I bet this item evolved slowly over time. It probably just grew out of a speck of matter and slowly became wonderfully detailed, and complex. And then somehow found itself here.”
Instead, we’d say, “I wonder who made this. What does it do? Who created it, and what is its purpose?” We’d assume intelligent design (a creator) because we see the care and detail of the creation.
We do the same thing when we look at great art: We marvel at the creation before us, the glorious, blue brushstrokes of Vincent van Gogh’s “Starry Night.” We don’t imagine that something that well-thought-out just happened. It was designed.
If you met someone who thought “Starry Night” grew out of nothing, who thought the painting became a magnificent masterpiece all on its own (over a period of billions of years, mind you), you’d probably think they were crazy.
Yet we entertain similar thinking when we put our faith in evolution.
Whether we are atheists or Christians or scientists, all of us put our faith somewhere. And those who back the evolutionary theory are no more “religious” than Christians.
I remember watching Nye’s silly science videos back in eighth grade. I grew up watching this man make learning look cool. Yet during the debate, it was hard to watch someone so intelligent, someone so intent on seeking out answers, someone who felt familiar, simply miss the truth.
Nye didn’t even have an answer for the biggest argument posed against evolutionary theory # where did the atoms that created the Big Bang come from, anyway? He admitted his own lack of knowledge drove him to continue the search for truth, through scientific investigation.
Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?
You bet.
Erin Murphy is a sophomore majoring in mass communications and the assistant arts and life editor. She can be reached at erinmurphy@mail.usf.edu or on Twitter @sassyerbear.
You’re using the word ‘theory’ without even knowing what it means within the realm of science. Nice try, though.
These are the most juvenile and ignorant arguments for Creationism and against Evolutionism and have been thoroughly addressed by people such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Maybe actually do some research next time before publishing rubbish.
Hi Ashley,
Just a reminder that opinion columns reflect the views of the writer, not necessarily the entire the publication. We appreciate the feedback!
“Science has been cancelled because your parents prefer to believe in magic.”
But seriously, Starry Night and a watch are inanimate objects without DNA or means of reproduction. They’re terrible examples that have nothing to do with evolution or creationism. Look at it from the perspective of genes being passed down through generations and not as an explanation for why life itself exists.