The recent debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham has certainly drawn its share of attention. If you didn't watch it I encourage you to do so. As of today, the debate is still available online for free. See the Answers in Genesis website for more information. The topic of the debate was, "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" My intention is to not rehash all the points of the debate. Instead, I want to talk about the most important point of the debate... the question of authority.
If you watch the debate in its entirety, you will come to the understanding that the real debate between evolution and creation is not about science, but rather the real issue being debated was the issue of authority. The battle was between the naturalistic worldview and the biblical worldview. The line that divided the two men on the stage was not science. Both men love science. The dividing line was not evidence, both men share the same evidence (the same fossils, the same geological formations, the same stars and planets- though they interpret this evidence in different ways). The real line that caused the debate was authority. Who's voice is authoritative? Is it the voice of God as recorded in His word, or the voice of Bill Nye, the self-styled "reasonable man"? Please read Albert Mohler's comments concerning Nye's reasonable man reference.
A poignant moment in the debate was when Nye was presented with questions concerning the origin of consciousness and matter. Nye was unable to answer the questions and admitted so, saying that the answers are mysteries. Ham's rebuttal was to refer Nye to a book that is an eyewitness account of the beginning- the Bible. And thus the clash of worldviews.
Nye's worldview will not allow for a Creator. It is based purely on materialism and denies the need for God. Therefore, Nye cannot answer the question of origins. Nye, the man of reason, defies the laws of reason by not admitting that every cause must be traced back to the first uncaused Cause (God). Nye's obvious presupposition that there is no God betrayed the propagators of evolution who try to pass themselves off as unbiased scientists who simply go where the evidence leads them.
Conversely, Ham freely admitted that he trusts the Bible's record of origins. To some, Ham's dependence upon the Bible for knowledge about origins sounds overtly unscientific. But in reality, as Ham said in the debate, the very laws of nature that scientists depend upon for their discoveries cannot be explained apart from God. One cannot do science without the natural laws that originate with and are sustained by God. As Ham explained, even evolutionists who deny a need for God unknowingly borrow from the biblical worldview to practice observational science.
The debate was about authority. The reasonable man based his authority on fallible man's ideas of origins apart from a creator. The biblical man based his authority on the eyewitness account of the Creator. The reasonable man suppressed the truth (Romans 1:18) whereas the biblical man clung to revealed truth (John 17:17). The reasonable man portrayed himself as wise without God and arrived at foolish conclusions (Psalm 14:1). The biblical man feared God (Prov. 1:7) and concluded wisely that the only way to speak authoritatively about origins is to hear from the Creator Himself.
_______________________________________________________________________________
An appeal to my progressive creationist, framework hypothesis, or theistic evolutionist Christian brothers. Think logically.
You genuinely believe that God literally raised Christ from the dead. Yet this event is scientifically impossible. All scientists, Christian or not, have to agree that resurrection from the dead could only be a supernatural event. Of course, non-believers do not allow for the supernatural, therefore they deny the resurrection. But contrary to unbelieving scientific consensus, you believe that Christ died on a cross, was buried, and rose again on the third day and not one of you would deny the truth of that account as recorded in Scripture. You believe Christ hung on a literal cross. He was buried in a literal tomb. He was resurrected in a literal body just as the Bible says.
Why then, would you deny the truth of the literal reading of the account of creation as recorded in Genesis? Is it because scientific consensus tells you that a god cannot speak things into existence? Is it because the "overwhelming scientific consensus" is that the universe is billions of years old? A person cannot be literally raised from the dead, yet you believe the literal reading of the resurrection account. Brothers, there is more evidence for a recent creation as described in Genesis than for resurrection from the dead. Why do you have to go to such great lengths to explain away the literal days and the literal chronology of the account? You read that God raised Christ on the third day and you believe contrary to man's opposition. You don't try to explain away the resurrection account. Why not read that God created everything is 6 days and believe?
You don't have to check your brains at the door to believe in young earth creation (derived from a literal reading of Genesis). You can read many scientific articles written by PhD young earth creationist scientists on the Answers in Genesis website. These scientists are published in scientific journals, have PhD education from accredited universities, and their work is peer-reviewed.
My appeal to you is to think logically. You believe God's word concerning the resurrection, the miracles of Jesus, etc. Why not believe God's word concerning His creating work?