When the video ended, in a moment of maddening rage I contemplated breaking my iPad.
I had just concluded watching a 3 hour debate between Ken Ham the infamous “young earth” CEO of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye “the Science Guy” on the topic of Creationism as a model to be taught to our youth. In my heart of hearts I knew that I was going to be angry at this “culture wars” spectacle and left deeply disillusioned and disgruntled on so many levels. However I felt it was my duty as a pastor and as one who tries to keep his finger on the pulse of culture to grit my teeth and tune in. From my understanding #creationdebate was for a fleeting moment the number one trending topic on the internet that night alongside #JustinBieber and #hotties. Jesus had to be so proud.
If the responsibility fell on my shoulders to choose a living representative for the Christian world I would have gone with the revered apologist Ravi Zacharias. I do not believe that the debate over creationism is simply a scientific/academic one. Yet on this fateful day, at this time I found Ken Ham to be “our guy.”
The debate was unspectacular on many levels. There were a few good one liners, straw man arguments and polarizing opinions all of which were to be expected in an event of this nature. When the debate ended, when the video bar had run it’s course and I realized that the circus was over I was stunned and shocked at one glaring omission.
I was waiting for it the whole time with bated breath; the big nasty question for non-theists; the one of Moral Lawgiver. I thought, “surely Ham will bring this up, it’s the best weapon we in this debate.” I felt like a kid watching Hulk Hogan wrestle and NOT hit the leg drop, or Wolverine to NOT use his claws, or the Steelers NOT throw the ball to Heath Miller….
I have never heard a satiating argument to the question of “who sets the rules?” It’s the biggie, the one that ought keep atheists up at night. If it isn’t God, then who? The king? The government? The people? The media? Those answers make all of mankind squeamish for a very good reason.
If a highly armed shooter waltzes into an elementary school and opens fire on a classroom full of kindergarteners who is to say he’s wrong? What if he is just carrying out his beliefs concerning the survival of the fittest? Sure, we’ll avenge those kids and kill him (if he doesn’t put a bullet in his own brain first) but was he objectively wrong?
How can we be sure that Hitler was wrong? Yes, I went there. Doesn’t every morality debate end with Nazis?
We keep hearing Nye talk about a world in which morality and progress should be driven by an evolutionary worldview. He annoyingly pleaded with voters and taxpayers to consider the ramifications of choosing else wise.
My question is “what does Bill Nye’s New World Order look like according to evolution’s principles of survival of the fittest?” What becomes of the old, the weak, the obese, the suicidal, the retarded, the disabled etc? Aren’t they just holding society down? Should we expend valuable resources to allow them to continue their existence? What about unwanted children, unborn or otherwise? Where is the line to be set and could you pull the lever of the guillotine?
Are we willing to lose our souls for progress?
But wait…..we don’t have souls do we? We are a meaningless conglomeration of molecules that came together purely by chance billions and billions of years ago. Well then; carry on Bill Nye! Guide us into the future!