I anticipated the debate, wondering what it would be like and if anything extraordinary would come of it. In my heart, I wished to see Bill Nye realize the error of his thinking and become a Christian. However, my logic dictated that this was a silly notion, since he seems to be quite hardened in his rebellion. The next day, I was sure, life as we know it would continue as normal. However, hopefully many people who would normally not give the time of day to a young earth creationist, such as Ken Ham, would actually watch the debate because of all the media attention. I pray this was the case.
The main thing that I learned was not a new evidence or argument. What I failed to realize before was that one of the key disagreements in the debate would be over the difference between observable science and historical science. I have to be careful here not to offend anyone...but I just assumed that anyone who has half a brain can acknowledge that there is a difference between things that are observed and things that are deduced. Surely the former is more in line with the definition of science than the latter. But to people like Bill Nye and anyone who is an unquestioning product of our biased public education and popular media, the two kinds of science are inseparable. To them, you must accept "millions of years" and evolution if you are going to use the scientific method. They can't swallow the Genesis creation account. I get that. But what authority are they listening to in order to interpret the observable evidence? A consensus of secular scientists? Discovery Channel? Public school textbooks? I just can't fathom how an evolutionist cannot (or refuses to) see the difference between using the scientific method and making theories about the past.
Suppose I walk into someone's garage and there is an ice block sitting in a basin of water. How long has it been there? I can record the time and current temperature in the garage, then measure the water and use the rate of melting to to get an idea of how long it has been sitting there. It sounds very scientific, right? That is a generally good hypothesis. But can you prove it? Evolutionists want you to stop there and accept that answer. "But what if someone dumped water on the ice to make it melt faster?"
"Impossible!" they shout.
"What if the temperature in the garage is drastically different now than it was before?"
"Nonsense!" they counter. "Thinking outside of the box is not allowed. You must accept our hypothesis as proven fact or you are stupid and don't understand science." Or am I just logical? Suppose the person who put the block of ice there also left a note explaining that his wedding band accidentally got frozen in a large block of ice in the freezer and he had been pouring warm water over it to melt the block and rescue his ring. "That note can't be trusted!" they protest.
Before Tuesday night, I thought that such people didn't see the difference because they had never thought about it or heard it explained that way. I thought the presentation of such information would cause an evolutionist to scratch his chin and say, "You're right, I never realized that before." There probably are such people around. Hopefully they were watching this debate. Hopefully they learned something too.