Ken Ham Debate
This article critiques Rev. Clay Spronk's response to the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate, arguing that while Scripture must be the interpretive lens for science, evolutionary arguments cannot be dismissed as merely "silly" since they often display sophisticated logic and compelling data interpretation. The author contends that the real problem with atheistic science is not logical fallacy but rather its failure to align with biblical truth and its reflection of fallen human nature's tendency to worship the creature rather than the Creator.
I commend the SB for publishing Rev. Clay Spronk's recent article "The Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate" (May 15, 2014, p. 370). Like Rev. Spronk, I watched the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham with great interest, and came away with an appreciation for the way that Ham defended the importance of Scripture in interpreting science. It is the Bible that must be the "corrective lens" for logical interpretation of scientific evidence by a believing scientist, as it is the only means for obtaining a...
Full article available on sb.rfpa.org