>>>>Before the debate I received many emails, phone calls, letters, Facebook postings, and even certified mail telling me what I should say to Bill Nye. About 150–200 people gave me advice. Some Christians (including Christian leaders) wrote articles declaring what they would do in a debate with Mr. Nye, and they knew I would have the wrong approach—and that was before they even heard the debate!
I also knew what would happen after the debate—I would be critiqued by friend and foe alike for what I said or didn’t say. Yes, even some of our supporters were unhappy with me for not including more of what they see as evidences. Most of them didn’t seem to comprehend the real nature of the battle.
I went into the debate knowing that I was opening myself up to the world—and no matter what I did, people from both sides would have negative responses. And that’s exactly what has happened.<<<
If it had been me rather than Ham doing the debate, I would probably have said much more about irreducible complexity, origin of life scenarios and mutations and avoided age of the earth (*). But I wasn’t, Ham was. He says in his own reflection that tactically he was determined to not say too much about the specifics of the scientific evidence and arguments against evolution, which is well documented on sites like AiG, CMI, ICR and elsewhere. He determined instead to try to make the case that the repeatable, operational science that puts rockets on the moon and gives us Smartphones and medicines is quite different to the historical science that claims to know what happened in the unobservable past, while relying on many untestable assumptions.
He raised the issue of interpretation of evidence depending on materialistic or Biblical worldviews as being an issue with which we needed to come to terms. He emphasized the ‘bait and switch’ tactics which are routinely used to argue massive conclusions from tiny and/or irrelevant pieces of evidence. Time will tell if this was the best tactic, perhaps.
Anyway, I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt a full appraisal of the debate, others are doing so from both sides and the middle (if there is a middle). If Ham proves successful in persuading even a few people to think outside the box and question the (generally unstated) philosophical assumption of naturalism then it will have been worthwhile. But the massive evolution propaganda machine will carry on doing what it does-portraying Darwin skepticism as ‘religion versus science’, misrepresenting creationists and generally keeping up the evolutionist propaganda that there is no scientific case to be made against molecules to man evolution.
And some of us, perhaps a growing number, will continue to point out that Emperor Charlie is stark bollock naked.
(*) a very old earth is a necessary BUT NOT A SUFFICIENT condition for molecules to man evolution to have occurred. If the biology says that a naturalistic unguided origin of life is so improbable that we might as well say impossible (and it does) then more time doesn't help. Furthermore, the God of the Bible if He can raise the dead and turn water into wine instantaneously is quite capable of creating a MATURE cosmos in 6 days. a MATURE (i.e. currently fit for purpose) cosmos, world and plants animals and people would OF NECESSITY have appeared old, just like that water turned into wine. That's about all I have to say on the age of the earth.