As a Christian, this kind of thing is so frustrating. Obviously in order to be a believer, you're going to have to hold views that may not always be popular or make sense to others. But that's YOUR burden, not everyone else's. Why Ham feels the need to take his stand here can be somewhat confusing to non-Christians and it can really only be understood when you take his particular brand of hyper-literalism into account. His theology stands firmly on what he would call a "literalist" interpretation of the scriptures. For him the Bible is full of certainties regarding things like heaven and hell and the wrath of God (and God's goodness as well, to be fair). There is no real wiggle room. And if you were able to poke a hole in any one of those interpretations then the door would be open to poking holes in all the others. That's what he's working so feverishly to avoid. Creationism is more about preserving an entire theology and hermeneutic than it is about maintaining a theologically consistent creation account or myth. Hopefully this helps provide a little context into why someone would stand so firmly by something many people consider so inconsequential.
As an atheist, I feel qualified to say that I don't think non-Christians are ignorant of (or confused by) the points you raise here - not even slightly. So don't feel so frustrated! These people's literal interpretation of the Bible is not a difficult concept to grasp. I'm not sure why you felt a need to explain it, since you clearly aren't defending it.
I guess because I feel like this "debate" is creating a false dichotomy in several ways. I look up to Nye (anyone in my age range who watched the Science Guy probably does) and "believe in" evolution (whatever that means). I'm disappointed that Nye's willingness to have this debate lends a certain legitimacy to Ham. And I'm disappointed that Ham is the face of Christianity to many people. Anyway, sorry for over-explaining.
Despite Nye's popularity and willingness to go to the bat for various causes, he loves being in the media. It's how a person like him stays relevant. So while I'm sure part of this is him wanting to defend science, part of it is likely him wanting to be on TV in a "big-ticket" situation that will keep people talking about him. My high school physics teacher was actually somewhat renowned, having been published a few times and through being a part of various science boards, and had the opportunity to meet Bill Nye a few times. Mind you this was back in the 1990s and early 2000s. But from his encounters Nye came across as self-righteous and important, and somewhat egocentric. A person traveling around with a bit of an entourage and putting himself on a pedestal.
I think a bit of ego can help one with success, but I think judging how much ego is enough is a tough call, especially from the inside. That's too bad, though perhaps Nye is done with that now. As an aside, one of my college professors went to Phillips Andover (the Yale prep school, Phillips Exeter is the Harvard one) with George W. Bush and would tell us about how "Georgie" as he called him was known for putting on airs, what with his cowboy boots and according to my professor, even a bit of an accent, though everyone knows the Bushes are from Kennebunkport. I guess a Maine accent isn't cool at prep school (or otherwise).
That's why I put the timeline disclaimer, he may be over that phase, he may not be. Only people with the opportunity to meet him today, out of his CNN persona, would be able to determine that. I work fairly close to there. Andover is a crazy wealthy place. I've also been to the area near Kennebunkport (girlfriend's family is from that area). That's funny. People definitely put on a show depending on what environment they are in.
I'm not surprised it's a wealthy place. Those schools are nuts. I guess teenagers always want to stand out in some way, though putting on a Texan-esque accent amongst WASPs speaking Mid-Atlantic English seems pretty strong.
well there isn't very much point in avoiding it. Holding such a literal and firm interpretation in anything is almost always a less than ideal position. Why would allow something that's causing conflict in the path of "human development" to keep existing? Hell, half the things being portrayed in the media as Christian issues aren't even essential to the supposed heart of the religion. It doesn't make sense to me. Why would you need to accept dogma any further than, "dont be a dick to other people. Seriously, its hard, but just try not to be a dick."
"Don't be a dick to other people" is a moving target and isn't actually as helpful of a sentiment as many would think. Anyway, I'm not really interested in defending Ham, only in maybe shedding some light on what drives the theology of him and his readers/listeners. When you boil it all down, much of the confusion regarding Christianity has to do with the fact that it's a rather old (especially since we think we're worshiping the same God that the ancient Hebrew people did) Middle-eastern religion that is being shoehorned into a western mindset. It does NOT fit very well in many respects. For instance, people like Ken Ham try to treat the creation accounts in Genesis as if they were a history book. They are not.
I watched the whole thing from when it started. It was absolutely fascinating, but it was clear that Ken Ham couldn't hold a candle to Nye-- and that was to be expected. Of course Bill is correct in what he's stating, and of course Ken is an extremely literalist Christian, but it was an important thing to see because, while he's completely wrong, Ham's view is gaining a lot of traction everywhere. He couldn't carry himself though. He dodged many questions, and even after Nye called him out, he continued to ignore them. His logic was unbelievably circular more times than I could believe. I thought he'd at least have oratory skills or pull at pathos (which he did in the latter to some degree, that's where most of this is built: on comfort in the believes he's espousing instead of the vastness of science), but it felt like a very close-minded man speaking out of his league. I'd imagine people on the fence that have the any semblance of critical thought found what he said to be extremely unsatisfactory, while opposite him you had a very lively and informative Bill Nye. I found him to be fun and fascinating much like I did when I was a child, and I learned a great deal of new information tonight. I absolutely adored his little asides about fun facts, or quotes, or some history, or just little jokes (I burst out laughing at work at his joke about his boss towards the end.) This seemed to me, before the event and up until the rebuttal phase, to simply be a publicity grab for Ham. No matter what would happen, he'd be getting exposure at a very public event with a very public figure, and people who already share his view or near his view will easily be swayed to what he believes, but Nye was so charismatic I think it wholely failed to do that. He looked absolutely beaten and rattled towards the end and even my cold, black, cynical heart felt like if I was someone wary of science or evolution or anything around that whole side of the debate, even if I had a religious background, I would be persuaded by Nye. He was that well spoken throughout this.
glad I saw this... it starts in 5 minutes! Good timing, thanks