14 02 05: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham "Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today's Modern Scientific Environment?" 

I tuned into the last few minutes. Once again, I find two people from extreme poles missing the two major points in this "debate:" 1) Ken Ham is in denial of the following fact: cosmological, chemical and biological evolution are beyond doubt. They are deeply attested to in reams upon reams upon reams of scientific evidence. 2) Bill Nye is infatuated with this fact and cannot see beyond it to realize that the reams more clearly support a Creator than deny one.

The facts revealed in the reams tell us that the universe began 13.82 billion years ago in a big bang that was accompanied by about 20 fundamental forces, constants, and masses. Further, the values of these forces, masses, and constants were 1) independent of each other, 2) finely tuned, one to the 100th decimal place, and 3) absolutely essential for cosmological, chemical, and biological evolution to proceed to us. The probability that they would occur together with these values is so small that science invokes infinity to explain them. Although there are about eight ways science does this, they boil down to one that doesn’t invoke infinity: it couldn't happen any other way and two that do: there are an infinity of universes and we're in the one with the right numbers, or the universe is infinite and we're in the part with the right numbers.

Science misses the third infinity: The universe was created by an infinite mind. In this regard, I certainly agree with Ken Ham. When you couple this with Genesis 1, whether you interpret it literally or as John Walton cogently claims, as a description of functional creation rather than material creation, you cannot deny that "empty and void" and "let there be light" perfectly describe the big bang in the simplest terms possible--just one more fact that we have in our legion of evidence that the Gospel is the inspired and inerrant word of the Lord God Creator of the universe!