Creation in Genesis

741 Words2 Pages

Is creation a viable model of origin in today’s modern scientific era? This was the focal point in the debate between Ken Ham a leading creationist apologist, and Bill Nye, an Emmy award winning science educator. In focusing on Ken Ham and his hermeneutics, it is clear that the genre he presupposes for Genesis 1-3 is that of a historical narrative. Genesis lays the foundation for the gospel which is why he and other Biblical creationists hold such a young-earth view (Answers in Genesis). The first chapters of Genesis teach us about God’s perfect creation, man’s rebellious fall, God’s just punishment of death for sin, and God’s gracious promise of the seed, Jesus Christ (Answers in Genesis). Ham states “The creation/evolution debate is really a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts of origins or historical science beliefs. Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era.” He says “Creationists and Evolutionists have the same evidence on the Grand Canyon, Fossils, Animals, Humans, DNA, Radioactive Decay and the Universe.” Creationists and evolutionists differ in the sense that although they use the same evidence they develop two radically different interpretations. Ham states “The diversity of species which is observed is only a difference in “kind”.” He then concludes that it cannot be used as evidence for evolution. Another example appears when Ham talks about how creationists and evolutionists at Goddard Space Center agreed on how to build the Hubble telescope. They did not agree on how to interpret the data the telescope obtained in regard to the age of the universe. It is clear that Ham continues to base his pres... ... middle of paper ... ...s why God’s son died on the cross for all. Lastly, Catastrophe in comparison with Christ relates to the global flood that was to come. The flood was a judgment due to man’s wickedness as well as a message of God’s grace and salvation. Ham then concluded how “observational sciences” look at the things we can see in repeatable events now and compares it to “historical science” which uses evidence gathered to determine what happened in the past. Due his comparison he states “we can never truly have “knowledge” regarding the historical sciences.” In summation, the debate aided me in creating a more sophisticated analysis on Genesis. It led me to take away my own interpretation of the text in Genesis 1-3, through listening to Ken Ham, and his young-earth view. Works Cited ""Don't Call Us Young-earth Creationists . . ."" Answers in Genesis. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2014.

Open Document