Okay. Maybe “rooting” for anyone is the wrong “Christian” posture to have. Christians should be “rooting” for civil dialog, for charity and clarity, and for truth. But make no mistake about it, “rooting” for a winner is exactly what will be going on.
And the sides are already pretty well drawn.
On one hand are those like philosopher, author, and atheist James Kirk Wall who wrote yesterday in the ChicagoNow blog that people and positions like those of Ken Ham “deserve to be ridiculed without mercy”:
If someone had a belief that human babies came from storks, we wouldn’t need a debate. If one third of the adults in this country believed that babies came from storks, as insane as it sounds, yes, we need to have the debate. And that’s where we are. The people who believe in creationism should be zero, but it’s not. And we have people like Ken Ham and a lot of misguided Republican politicians to thank for that. These people deserve to be crushed in argumentation. These people deserve to be ridiculed without mercy. The entire future of our species rests on science, and these people want us to go backwards.
And there you have it. If you are a creationist you are a threat to the “entire future of our species.”
Which significantly ups the ante for this debate.
Then there’s folks like those At Ken Ham’s Facebook page who post informative info-graphics like this
and whose supporters hearken back to a similar “debate” that ended, um, not so well for “the other side.” Hey, with God on your side, what would you expect?
Interestingly enough, there’s a third category. It appears a significant number of professing Christians are rooting for Ken Ham to lose.
Like these comments culled from a popular evangelical / Fundamentalist critique / satire site (whose name shall not be mentioned lest I am overrun with trolls):
I’m a Christian and really dislike Ken Ham. This will be like arguing to a cat. Actually, that’s an insult to a cat.
Science will have little effect on people who believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. To them, Nye is literally Satan’s tool for deception.
I remember when I thought Ken Ham was smart and correct. Then again, I was homeschooled by Baptists.
this won’t be a debate – a debate presents facts to substantiate an argument – ham has no facts
It should be pretty one-sided, but I expect Ham to start with the ad hominem attacks once he starts losing.
just exactly how do you debate stupid?
With so many wonderful people on both sides of the aisle — from the “clownish entertainer,” to the Amish-bearded Elijah, to the faithful Remnant seeking to rescue the “entire future of our species” from the clutches of the evil creationists — it’s hard to choose who to root for.
The question I have, however, is why a Christian would root for “the other side” to win.
For the record: I was a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) by default until I started listening more carefully. Now I’m an OEC (Old Earth Creationist), but remain fairly libertine when it comes to whatever side one chooses. To me, the most important factor in the entire debate is where one lands on the Origin of the Cosmos issue. In other words, it’s not how old the earth is nor the exact processes (Natural and/or Supernatural) employed. It’s whether or not we are (1) Accidental or (2) Planned.
At least, that’s my bottom line.
And that’s precisely why I’m unsure what to make of Christians who’re rooting for Ken Ham to lose.
You see, as much as I may disagree with Ken Ham, his YEC position, his Creation Museum, or his followers and their helpful info-graphics, I support him in his desire to proclaim Christ as Creator. The Universe is not an accident! In this, me and Ham completely agree. YECers and OECers find common ground in the belief that E(arth) was C(reated), not randomly assembled by impersonal forces. We probably disagree about whether or not Jesus ever rode a dinosaur. But we agree that dinosaurs existed because Jesus let them.
The apostle Paul once wrote this from a Philippian prison:
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill.The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel.The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. — Philippians 1:15-18 NIV
This doesn’t apply directly to the Creation / Evolution debate. But there’s a bottom-lined-ness to it that I think Christians could rally around. Even though someone’s motives are wrong, their approach is off, their intentions are suspicious, and their beliefs about the age of the earth are questionable, if Christ is their content and they are a follower of the One True God, they could be “rooted for” to succeed.
Listen, there’s plenty of Christians with whom I disagree. Some of them are even an embarrassment to the Christian cause. Is Ken Ham one of them? Perhaps. But as Paul said, “what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”
So, yeah. I guess I’m rooting for Ken Ham to win.
I have this, perhaps strange, theory that the scientific community is going to eventually embrace intelligent design, which will then help usher in the anti-christ because people will be open to the notion of supernatural signs and wonders. But, that’s another post. I think Ken Ham is going to have a rough time of it because he’s going into the debate with the same problem as the evolutionists. Both sides came to a conclusion first and then designed their theories to support it.
Actually, evolution is based on observation and experimentation. Then based on those observations, a theory was formed.
The myth that evolution can’t be observed is untrue. Evolution can’t be observed directly in humans (but we can observe it using the fossil record) because humans have a long lifespan.
But evolution can be witnessed on organisms that have a short lifespan, like bacterias, viruses and insects to name a few.
For example:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/15/245168252/bacterial-competition-in-lab-shows-evolution-never-stops
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
I have this, perhaps strange, theory that … it’s gonna rain tomorrow and a big ole pine tree in the yard is gonna be blow’ded down and land on the truck…. …. …. right maw?
Wo the day when we politicize the ‘proud ignoramus’ and voila The Tea Party was begotten.
You don’t have a theory, you have a hypothesis.
A theory is based on observable facts and provides a framework that allows to reproduce the results using experiments.
Also, I don’t understand your point.
He’s making fun of Jessica.
Observations are used to form hypotheses, not theories. You’re conflating scientific process with layman’s terms.
Scientifically speaking, something is technically only supposed to become a “theory” if it 1. is testable, 2. is repeatable, 3. does not violate any preexisting laws of science, 4. holds up over time.
(I have formal university-level science training from a competitive secular university. When I am referring to definitions, I am referring to the definitions used by secular evolutionists themselves.)
By that formal definition, evolution isn’t a theory. Nor is creationism—whether young earth or old earth. All are hypotheses. Evidence can support a hypotheses, but since we can’t duplicate the origin of the universe, anything we believe about it will necessarily be a hypothesis.
Something being a hypothesis isn’t bad. There is reason that, colloquially, “theory” can mean both “hypothesis” and “theory” in the scientific sense. But conflating definitions—switching them mid-argument—is just bad logic (equivocation fallacy, to be precise).
Speak in layman’s terms or speak in scientific jargon. Conflating them without transition is propaganda.
I go with the evidence which is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution. The evidence trumps what “tribe” one benongs to.
Belongs, not benongs. oops.
As per our Twitter exchange: If by “evolution” you ultimately mean a mechanism spun out from Random Natural Forces, we disagree. If by “evolution” you simply mean a process whereby organisms better adapt to their environment, sure.
So I guess my question is, Andrew: Are humans (1) Accidental or (2) Planned?
They is no evidence that humans are planned. There are many “design” flaws in the human body that no “designer” would have put there.
The mutations are random. Natural selection is like a sieve. Those genes that produce an organism that is well suited to the environment will be more likely to reproduce than those that are less well suited. Those genes will tend to dominate in a population. If the environment changes the gene pool changes by the process I just mentioned.
Mutations happen between every generation. You will have around 200 or so mutations from your parents DNA.
The process of evolution isn’t in question. It is an observable fact. The idea that Ken Ham wants to “debate” it says far more about the American education system and the infiltration of religion into it.
Dang, keep making typos. 1st word “There” not “They”.
OK. Then we disagree. Again, Andrew, the bottom line issue for me isn’t natural selection and the processes of species development. The issue is whether the universe was created by an outside Intelligence or whether it was self-generated. I believe this is the issue it all comes back to. Thanks for commenting.
“The issue is whether the universe was created by an outside Intelligence or whether it was self-generated.”
Then your issue isn’t with evolution.
Quite. The way I often think of it is like this: Biology is essentially a specific application of chemistry, which is a specific application of physics, which is a real-world version of mathematics, which is built on logic etc… Cosmology is also a branch of physics.
So when Dawkins and the evolutionists think they have solved the recipe of the universe cake by explaining the composition of the decorations on the top of the icing, I think they have overstated their achievements. There’s a whole cake underneath, guys!
The real question (as Dawkins himself probably realises) is how you get something from nothing. Even accidentally getting something from nothing is a big problem to explain.
Biology is not the place to look. Evolution tells us nothing. The origin of some much deeper concepts and physical building blocks need some explaining. Otherwise there would be nothing. Not even blackness. Just Nothing.
If one so chooses, the theory of the “Big Bang” could be so extremely broken down into this premise – before anything existed, before space in all it’s vastness occurred, before any matter had been formed, no universal laws existed. On this basis, no laws of cause and effect could be present in the universe. Therefore, an effect could exist without a cause. A single, universal form of matter could spawn – a far more likely idea than an entire universe with working systems and functions and laws and processes. This is evidenced by the theory of evolution in that all forms of life would form from a common unit.
As a side note, please consider the word “theory.” A theory is not a guess. It is not a hunch. It is the mass collection of data through experimentation that has been supported by all data collected and can be observed in the world around us (at least through experimentation). GRAVITY is a theory, and I don’t see people jumping out of buildings and hoping to fly…
I don’t think it’s as observable as you think. I think that if anything, organisms are even more complex than most people thought, and they are SO well suited to their environment it’s hard to see how they could evolve via natural selection. I think this is why people softpedal that and focus more on emergent systems now.
Like I enjoy reading about sea life, and one of the things you quickly notice is how insane most of it is in terms of biology. If you read about the siphonophores, for example, you’re looking at a level of integration that really couldn’t evolve randomly. Or complex systems like the goblin shark’s jaw or its ability to sense electric fields through ampullae. A lot of deep sea life is very tuned to its environment, and the more we know about critters, the less we really can explain them.
” If you read about the siphonophores, for example, you’re looking at a level of integration that really couldn’t evolve randomly”
Says who? Isn’t that just an argument from incredulity?
Of course organisms in a very specific environment, where the slightest mutation in an individual means annihilation for that individual, species are going to be tightly adapted to their environment.
In environments where there is plenty of varying sources nutrition/light/oxygen etc (like the tropics fro instance) , the environment is far more forgiving (i.e. the sieve of natural selection lets more organisms through).
Evolution is directly observable via comparative genomics, ring species, observable adaptation all backed up by a fossil record that matches the predictions of the above fields of study.
No, because they defy the simple “adapt to the enviroment through gradual change” idea by the complexity of their colony-like existence. It’s not just an unforgiving environment, but they somehow managed seriously complex systems existing in spite of one that punishes failure with the inability to pass on genes.
Even among the tropics, animals are incredibly complex things existing in a tenuous environment. The level of complexity makes a person pause when thinking natural selection can explain it solely. It’s kind of funny, but some critters even in the same family differ as much from each other as say the X-men differ from normal humans and the mutations would seem as magical in their own way.
Individuals are “punished” (don’t survive to pass on their genes) if their genes don’t produce an organism that isn’t suited to the environment, but the siblings (who have a different compliment of genes) aren’t.
“but some critters even in the same family differ as much from each other as say the X-men differ from normal humans”
A family, in biology is a huge classification, normally including 1000s of species. Of course there is huge variety.
As the X-Men are fictional, I’m not entirely sure what gene compliment they are supposed to have.
“The level of complexity makes a person pause when thinking natural selection can explain it solely.”
Perhaps, but complexity is just lots of simple things, not magic. Really, it is. And lots of simple things over time amount to complex things (although complexity isn’t a goal in evolution). Time is something which evolution has in spades.
Isn’t there some theory saying the….human DNA or genome will wither away? Im not science savvy, but I do recall hearing that eventually that humans will run their course. Not by our choice but just by nature, even if we manage not to kill each other.
I can’t root for Ham, because the idea of a young earth isn’t true. I don’t think evolution by natural selection can explain human origins, though. But I can’t go with tribal loyalty and rejoice in Christ being preached when it’s really not Him that is; it’s the gospel of YEC according to Ham.
It’s the same when we get stuff like The Bible Code. When people spend more time promoting a system of thought, it’s dangerous because it makes people put faith in it instead of Christ. And those other systems get proven wrong, causing people to doubt the greater faith in Jesus they have.
D.M. You have no common ground with Ken Ham? I agree with your point that promoting systems of thought can be dangerous. And as I said, I’m not a big AiG / Ham fan. But I’m not ready to say that Ken Ham is not preaching the true Christ because he believes in a young earth. Can you explain how you equate those two.
It’s not that he believes it, but that he’s created a small empire promoting it. That he spends so much time on proving creation existed in a certain way rather that Christ. A danger in apologetics is that you fall in love with the theory you use to defend the Gospel rather than the Gospel itself, and all your effort is on promoting that theory’s success.
Another danger in apologetics is that you focus on the negative and don’t really create faith, but anti-faith. Like Ham has to constantly attack things like carbon dating or any new scientific discoveries that date the earth older than 7k years. But you can’t believe by default; even if I prove atheism wrong, attacking it doesn’t mean a person will be inclined to believe in the faith. Kind of fostering skepticism rather than belief.
I guess that’s why I don’t think he’s preaching Christ.
Why exactly can’t evolution by natural selection explain human origins? There is a mountain of evidence supporting the claim. Do you have any that disagrees with the evidence scientific community has found?
I have evidence that convinces me, but a comment box is too short to use to describe it. Also I don’t think Mike wants to see a full evolution/creation debate crowd the combox when his point was more about whether or not we should support YEC as fellow Christians despite disagreeing with them.
How about just keywords then? Or what about moving to somewhere else with the discussion so we could continue there? I’ve got accounts in most of the usual social media platforms, just tell me what would you prefer.
No. I’ve done my share of explaining in times past, and it’s enough for me to say that I find reasons to doubt the typical secular narrative of natural selection alone being enough to produce life. I don’t have to justify this belief to your satisfaction, because it’s not something to try and convert people over. You need Christ, not a dialectic on creation; that dialectic is only useful in hinting to a person that philosophical materialism is not the only system of thought that can explain things.
I am surprised I didn’t catch myself responding to Andrew, but old habits die hard.
Your main mistake is assuming that someone is correct just because he argues for christianity.
And that is despicable. By your logic and by your viewpoint, the Crusades were something glorious – because even though thousands of people were slaughtered, it was done in the name of God. And that is simply not true. Mr. Duran, you need to decide whether you are more a follower of the Bible or a follower of human morals. Like in the story of Abraham.
Um…it should just be pointed out that the infographic up there is wrong. That’s Paul Zaloom as Beakman from “Beakman’s World” (a good fun kids’ show, btw), not Bill Nye.
Greg, I just report the news.
Can someone explain to me how is it possible that both young-Earth creationists and old-Earth creationists “prove” their claims using the exact same book? Have been any debates between the two creationism-supporting schools of thought?
Kalle, I don’t think either side “proves” their claims just using the Bible. They both rely on their interpretation of scientific evidence and various text of Scripture. And actually there’s much vigorous debate amongst YECs and OECs. The Unbelievable podcasts have several extremely interesting ones (of which I’ve provided a link here) http://bit.ly/1cTtMgM
Thanks for the link, I’ll be sure to listen to it tomorrow.
To an outsider it’s simply incredibly funny how two people following the same book, both generally claiming it to be inerrant and perfect, can make so drastically different claims from it. The “scientific evidence” I’ve seen provided by either is anything but scientific. Creative interpretation of data, sure, but not scientific.
Kalle,
Back many years ago when I was a college undergraduate student, I took a few English classes where the object was to read a book or short story, then discuss it with my classmates. There were many times when students would find themselves agreeing with what the book or story said and yet draw entirely different meanings from the story or book.
Something similar obtains in reading the Bible. YEC and OEC people read the same text, and they agree it is true, yet they draw entirely different meanings from the text. It comes down to HOW people read the text and with what philosophical prejudices. I don’t want to go into those differences here. If, however, you are interested in reading a discussion on how Young Earth Creationism came to be identified with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, let me recommend these two links (Parts 1 & 2 of an essay):
Part 1: http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-young-earth-creationism-became-a-core-tenet-of-american-fundamentalism-part-1
Part 2: http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-young-earth-creationism-became-a-core-tenet-of-american-fundamentalism-part-2
The whole thing seems kind of gimmicky to me.
To me also.
I’m rooting for Bill Nye not because I agree with him but because I feel bad about how bad he lost on Dancing With The Stars.
I believe that God could have created the world in six days or by standard evolutionary methods. Proof of evolution, if it is ever obtained (that would be one LONG experiment), cannot disprove an all-powerful God.
What kind of evidence are you waiting to see for evolution? We have tons of it.
Kalle, many believe in the theory of Darwinian Evolution because they consider any supernatural alternative (i.e. creation/intelligent design) to be naïve, unthinkable, and unacceptable. If that’s your starting point, then I doubt any answer leading to such a conclusion will ever satisfy you.
But now to your claim… while your confidence is admirable, forgive me if I’m just a little skeptical about it. Where, pray tell, is the abundant, tangible proof of which you speak? At least Stephen J. Gould was honest about the lack of hard evidence when he said: “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.”
Or can you do any better than paleontologist Colin Patterson? When he was asked why his book failed to show true transitional fossils demonstrating macro-evolution, at least he had the integrity to answer: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Patterson_(biologist) *And despite Patterson’s later protests about so-called “creationist interpretations of his sayings,” what other conclusion can possibly be drawn from such a plain and honest declaration about the stark absence of proof?
Kalle, since you’re the one making the bold claim, after you have supplied the “tons of proof” of which you speak, please also answer the following questions in the interest of honest inquiry.
1. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
2. How did the very first cell reproduce itself? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
3. What’s the observable (not imaginary) mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?
4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received a radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just one bacteria also imply an intelligent source? Isn’t that a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the observable evidence?
5. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?
6. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, the laws of physics and logic?
7. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, and in the fossil record?
8. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA–which can only be produced by DNA?
9. What is your epistemological base? That is, how do you know what you know, and how can you demonstrate to others that they, too, should have confidence in the accuracy and completeness of your truth claims?
Sincerely,
Alex
“1. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?”
Firstly, life just means metabolism, homestasis, growth, adaptation and reproduction. All perfectly normal chemistry, each of which can be demonstrated in a lab.
When? around 3.5-4 billion years ago.
Why? Not a question that makes any sense. It assumes there was some purpose to it which presupposes some being that had a purpose. Noting suggests there is a reason in the sense you mean it.
How? It’s what chemicals do given the conditions on earth. Given other conditions they will do other things.
“2. How did the very first cell reproduce itself? When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?”
Pretty much the same way single celled organisms reproduce themselves now by asexual reproduction. The ability to reproduce evolved way before life reached the cellular level.
“3. What’s the observable (not imaginary) mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?”
Change over time with selection by the environment. Not sure what else you think needs to be involved.
“4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?”
Polymers can self assemble in the lab. DNA is in fact a very simple polypeptide and we only call it a code as an analogy. It isn’t a code, it’s just chemistry.
“5. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?”
It didn’t have oxygen. At least not oxygen unbound to other molecules. That’s why plants evolved first. The don’t need oxygen. Indeed, oxygen is a waste product for plants, which is where the oxygen eventually came from.
“6. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, the laws of physics and logic?”
Matter here on earth and our solar system came from the contents of a long exploded star that spilled it’s contents into space when it “died”. As for space and time itself that is something no-one has the answer to as no-one has the ability to see “before” the Big Bang. So the only honest answer anyone can give (including you) is “we don’t know”.
“. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, and in the fossil record?”
Living creatures are distant cousins, not descended from one another. There is no continuum between living creatures and evolution doesn’t state there should be. Fossils form only under very specific circumstances. Indeed we are lucky that we have the mountain of fossils that we do. Having said that, fossils aren’t the main source of evidence for evolution they merely back up the evidence from studies like comparative genomics.
“8. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA–which can only be produced by DNA?”
Actually, it was probably RNA that came first. DNA later and then those molecules of DNA that produced proteins that helped DNA replicate faster were more likely to propagate.
“9. What is your epistemological base? That is, how do you know what you know, and how can you demonstrate to others that they, too, should have confidence in the accuracy and completeness of your truth claims?”
The scientific methodology which is simply falsifiability, reproducibility and peer review. It’s the best method for ascertaining reality humans have ever come up with. If, however, you have a better one, please let everyone know, you will help progress human knowledge.
Thanks Andrew, but why did you reply for Kalle? Is he/she ill?
Also, my question for Kalle was: “…after you have supplied the “tons of proof” of which you speak, please also answer the following questions in the interest of honest inquiry.”
I may follow up on your other responses when I have time but, for now, about your response to #7: the concept of variation within species is true, but comparative genomics doesn’t prove that one species gradually becomes a new kind of creature. That is just playing at science, interpreting data according to one’s pre-commitment to philosophic naturalism.
Also, regarding your answer to #1 I find it interesting that you describe life as “metabolism, homestasis, growth, adaptation and reproduction” as if that’s no big deal. I take it you’re a materialist who thinks that matter is all there is? I’ve found that no one can consistently live by that worldview. It’s unpersuasive and dehumanizing. Care to show me otherwise?
I wasn’t replying for anyone other than myself.
Comparative genomics absolutely tells us that species change. (You need to look up what a species is, it’s merely the abilbity to reproduce with another organism).
I am a methodological naturalist (as opposed to a philosophical naturalist) In other words the natural world is more than enough to be getting on with, there’s plenty to find out about but if someone demonstrates there is something more than the natural world then all well and good. (NB no-one has yet, so maybe there’s some cachet for you there).
“I’ve found that no one can consistently live by that worldview.”
I’d rather be right then consistent. Consitency means not changing. If I’m not changing, I’m not learning.
The idea that the natural world is quite probably all there is, is the most fulfilling thing I’ve ever known (I used to be a christian). This is the one life I truly know I have so I’m going to live it, not spend it hoping there is something “better” once my body rots in the ground.
Andrew,
For the sake of productive discussion, there are differing traditions of Christian belief (e.g. Evangelical, Roman Catholic) and also a range of Christian experience from the merely nominal and uncritical to the well-studied and devout. It would help to know what kind of Christian you consider yourself to have been. I ask this sincerely. It would also help to know which of the following professing Christians you might have most identified with back in your former days:
1) Desmond Tutu
2) Bono
3) Tim Keller
4) Pope Francis
5) J.R.R. Tolkien
As for me, I’m a former atheist and am now an Evangelical who would identify most closely with Tim Keller. (Perhaps you’re familiar with his book “The Reason for God.”)
As to your claim that comparative genomics absolutely proves one form of creature can macro-mutate into another form, could you provide proof of this in such a way that negates the possibility of the existence of an intelligent designer?
Additionally, please provide proofs (i.e. anything convincing to you) that lead you to believe that evolution occurred apart from the existence of a designer. (This was something left out of your initial reply. I had asked Kalle to reply with the “tons of proof” of which she/he spoke.) Also, when I raised the question about when the universe began, I wasn’t just talking about our solar system but pointing to the deeper question: Did matter create itself or is matter eternal? (Since your practice of science has ruled out God it must now operate as an all-encompassing theory that bears the burden of explaining absolutely everything. Your saying otherwise does not make it so.)
Also, to clarify what I meant by the word “consistent,” I was making the point that one’s worldview ought to comport with reality, i.e. it ought to be consistent with the way things really are. When your worldview doesn’t work in the real world, that’s a sign of something seriously wrong with your worldview. So, I was using the word “consistent” in the sense of “right” … the very term you used. Perhaps I didn’t make my intended meaning clear enough.
Personally when I was an atheist, I found it extremely inconsistent (with the real world) to try to live by a naturalistic worldview on one hand yet also maintain on the other hand some very important practical beliefs that were part of my daily life such as:
(a) the belief that human beings have inherent dignity
(b) the belief that love has real meaning and is not merely a convention or social construct
(c) the belief that my thoughts and ideas possess significance beyond the fact that they are formed by the clash of chemicals in my cerebral cortex
(d) the sense that certain things are right and others are wrong in an absolutely binding way such as Hitler’s ethnic cleansing, child abuse, etc. (Because unless a standard exists apart from nature by which we can judge right and wrong, then morality is merely relative and, therefore, meaningless.)
Can you demonstrate how naturalism is not at odds with such universally shared human beliefs? Intelligent men like Jean-Paul Sartre and Jack London couldn’t do it, but perhaps you can. (By the way, I’m assuming that you share these beliefs too. If not, please explain why it is right to not believe so.)
Finally, do you find Dawkins’ argument at the end of “The Blind Watchmaker” persuasive? (i.e. “Evolution makes God superfluous, thus there is no design in the universe.”)
Because I hear it this way: “Because there is a remotely possible way nature could have come about without design, therefore it came about without design.”
Formally, that looks like:
P is not astronomically improbable, therefore P
Is that compelling to you?
To me, it sounds like substituting one belief for another. How exactly is that true science? (Answer: It isn’t. It’s philosophy. It’s religiously held faith in the non-provable assumption that nothing exists outside of nature.)
Personally, I found that after honest examination as an atheist I simply had to admit that I wanted to believe that science had disproven such things as a creator, an afterlife, and supernatural intervention in the universe. As much as I wanted to live as if God did not exist, I could no longer cling to the idea that my personal wishes were sufficient grounds for such belief.
Thinking the best about you, I’ll grant that likely you’re honestly not at the point of reaching a similar conclusion. And I’m not trying to offer you airtight, irrefutable proofs for God to somehow force you to accept such a conclusion. I’ve found that although many clues for God have a great deal of merit, ultimately every one of them is rationally avoidable at some point. You may decide to press on in clinging to the loopholes (“defeaters”) for every clue. But taken together many people find the clues for God’s reality have an accumulated weight that is powerful and appealing. (*See another former atheist who has assembled these clues in a much better way than I can here and now: http://pleaseconvinceme.com/category/theism/ )
Though you and I do not agree, I appreciate that our exchange has been friendly and respectful. Hollow sniggering is always easier than forming an actual argument, but people usually see right through it and it’s self-defeating. It seems you’ve avoided that, and that’s commendable. The thing that concerns me about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye is that it will generate heat and polarization rather than light and productive discussion.
Best regards,
Alex
as a fellow Andrew, I salute your answer sir! well done.
As a scientist and a follower of Jesus Christ, I hold to an Old-Earth Creationist position. I’ve had more than a few Young-Earth Creationists tell me that I’m outside the faith — even question my salvation — because of the position I take. As a scientist and a follower of Jesus Christ, I’ve had more than a few atheists question my scientific credibility and my sanity, precisely because of my religious faith.
Maybe it makes sense for me to root for a massive power failure that nixes the entire debate.
Being a scientist first requires you to follow the evidence and only then make claims. What evidence do you have for any sort of creation?
While this forum is probably the wrong place to enter into a debate on evidence for creation, I will list the things that are evidence for creation and then point you to a website where numerous scientists from multiple disciplines discuss the evidence for creation.
Evidences for Creation:
1. Fine tuning of the universe for life as we know it to exist.
2. Further fine tuning of our solar system for life as we know it to exist.
3. Evidence for design in creation; there is quite a bit of evidence that life as we know it has been designed, and the evidence for the design is consistent with features of the Creator described in the Bible.
a. Not all “bad designs” are actually bad; engineers (my father and paternal grandfather were both engineers) sometimes incorporate a feature that is sub-optimal for a system considered in isolation but that is needed to optimize the overall fitness of the designed device considered as a whole.
b. Given the great age of the universe (11+ billion years) and of our solar system (4.5+ billion years), it is inevitable life would show drift and evolution. The universe, our solar system, and our planet are dynamic, and life must evolve to cope with the demands of the dynamic system in which it resides.
c. Evidence for human evolution is not evidence that modern humans are the end product of blind, uncaring, unthinking evolution without any input from a Creator.
Kalle, there is abundant evidence for evolution. There is evidence for design. There is evidence that evolution was NOT blind and undirected. If you seriously want to see how scientists who are also Christians think about these issues, please visit the website http://www.reasons.org. Please search on that website these keywords:
evidence for creation
fine tuning
creation model
creation ex nihilo
universe from nothing
The organization name is “Reasons to Believe.” It was founded by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (astrophysics). It is staffed by very knowledgeable people including Fazale Rana, Ph.D. (biochemistry), Jeff Zweerink, Ph.D. (astrophysics), and Kenneth Samples (not sure what his degree is in, but he writes mostly about philosophy and theology and how they integrate with science). The staff at Reasons to Believe have created a testable creation model, and they invite skeptics to look at the evidence for their model as compared to alternatives. I would encourage you to look at their creation model and the evidence for it for yourself.
1) If universe was “tuned” otherwise then there could exist different sort of life. Life has simply adopted to the universe it has.
2) Pretty much the same as first one. Life here evolved to survive in conditions that exist. While our planet is probably somewhat special due to relatively massive moon there is very little reason to believe it to be unique in universe with trillins upon trillions of other planets.
A simple analogue for first two points:
If there is a hole in the ground and water that gets in it takes the exact shape of the hole was the water designed to fit the hole or is it just a natural coincidence based on basic physics?
3.a) What’s the design reasoning behind making human give birth a significantly more dangerous and painful experience than any other mammal? What about our awful quality of eyes, ears and nose compared to most other mammals? Hell, we even lack internal compass!
Also I can’t see how that claim is in any way in support for design.
3.b) yes and that’s exactly what we see. I can’t see how that’s in any way in support of creation-claim.
3.c) evolution has no end point, it’s a continous process. Humans today are quite definitely not what I’d consider the pinnacle of evolution. I again can’t see how that would supprt your claim of creation.
Now, in a bit more detail.
Blind – blind as in not seeing the future? Yes, evolutin as a process only works on “right now, right here”.
Uncaring – depends on definition. Evolution is a process that describes the ability of life to adapt to change. If some organisms fail to evolve for whatever reason (e.g they are too specialized) they will die out. Others will take their place soon enough so for them you could say it’s “caring”.
Unthinking – not really different from “blind”.
____
I know full well there is a LOT of evidence for evolution but I’ve yet to be presented with any for creation. You claim evolution isn’t blind and undirected but you haven’t provided a single piece of evidence in support of that claim.
Can you link me a post from reasons.org you deem to be THE best evidence for creation?
It doesn’t mean one bit who have created the site. To cite a bunch of names is just appeal to authority logical fallacy. ONLY thing that counts is evidence and nothing else matters.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believe-s-testable-creation-model
About “testable” creation model, why are they using theory of general relativity when it has nearly nothing to do with how universe came to being?
The 11 step creation process seems to claim first life form were plants created to live on land. Where are all the lifeforms existing in water literally billions of years before that?
“Crude mathematical models indicate that a species capable of significant evolutionary advance rather than doomed to eventual extinction, must have a population of one quadrillion individuals, a generation time of three months, and a body size of one centimeter. These conclusions are confirmed by field observations.”
[citation needed]
Also, there is a difference between dying out and adapting to environment.
“The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery”
I’m not quite sure how they came to that conclusion. Can you clarify?
The 20 “predictions” are quite, well, interesting and hardly testable. Here is how science uses the term prediction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Prediction_in_science
1-4 – zero evidence, not testable
5 – how is that relevant, exactly?
6 – it’s complex, yes, but I can’t see how that “predicts” a creator
7 – what part of the Bible confirms it?
8 – what branches are missing exactly?
9 – what about it?
10 – huh?
11-18 – what about them?
19 – what they described in the article DEFINITELY doesn’t match fossil records
20 – what about it?
From what I saw in the short article I can’t really see how their theory is testable. Their core claims have NO evidence in reality besides their claims taken from Bible.
So, why exactly should I believe their claims?
The ultimate failing is the two sides not understand they are “worshiping” the same ideas in different vassals. One is just rigidly more defined than the other. As opposed to spending time discussing; “what ifs”, overlap, and learning. We reduce these issues to baser chicken and the egg issues with both sides claiming they won, and a 99.8% you feel the winner is the one more inline with your belief structure.
But, the underlying issue is if you start to acknowledge holes in mythos, and asking those “what ifs” on a cosmic/heavenly level. You have to dismiss a large portion of dogma that people such as Ken Hamm fill their pockets touting. Which saddly keeps us away from a much more compelling argument/discussion.
For example:
Physicist Discovers Computer Code Embedded Within the Equations of String Theory
http://disinfo.com/2013/05/physicist-discovers-computer-code-embedded-within-the-equations-of-string-theory/
It’s a decent read, opens that cosmic question right up.
If it is proven true… I feel that human minds make mistakes and find things they inadvertently put their themselves. Or fail accept that certain things have to be beyond our understanding.
Note that string theory is strictly theoretical and it’s not that had to build internally logically consistent constructs that hold no bearing to reality.
That is why it’s such a great analogy to religion.
The only reason Bill Nye would agree to such a debate is to ridicule creationist – and any theistic thinking for that matter – he’s a humanist. Anyone claiming to be a Christian who would criticize Ken Ham for standing on God’s word as his authority rather than conforming his worldview to popular opinion should question the source of their own convictions.
Well, technically, there’s THOUSANDS of scientific observations & limiting factors that do place the age of the earth as less than 10,000 years old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY
(skip to the HALF-way mark)
Jesus Bless you!
Shall we limit God to the laws of nature? Or believe that the transcendent force that authored those laws could have created man, earth and heavens fully formed? Once you start limiting God to “discoveries” of man, you head down a slippery slope towards naturalism. Seems to me that it’s a dangerous compromise to try to have it both ways. How can you build a strong conviction when you’re trying to reconcile conflicting worldviews?
If God the author of truth, then anything that conflicts with scripture is a lie. If man’s wisdom is truth, then the bible is a lie. Trying to redefine truth may not be a salvation issue, but it’s clearly an accountability issue. You should not tread on this territory lightly.
At least Ken Ham is defending a naturally understood interpretation of scripture and directing skepticism towards man rather than defending theological gymnastics to try to reconcile conflicting worldviews.
Interesting to me is that Mike is espousing the idea that one can “skip” the “wrong” parts of Ham’s interpretation and belief in the Bible’s literal explanation of the age of the Earth and jump on the main idea of God and Jesus being the salvation of Man.
That is very convenient. When I attended Bible Camp they never ever suggested this course of action to allay my nascent agnostic doubts.
Of course most modern Christians already ignore many old-Testament laws.
This debate is important because it really is about how we define our history on Earth. Biblically, or scientifically. It impacts directly on climate change and evolution science, and whether thinking people should “disbelieve” either in demonstrable facts or in The Word.
I find Francis Bacon’s starting point compelling: “A man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.” (Bacon was a Christian and the father of scientific empiricism). A testimony:
My early “Christian” life was really just church life. As I grew up this legacy moved with me into adulthood. I called myself a Christian but this was based on a sense of my “goodness” outweighing my “badness.” Alex wisely asked for a useful tradition clarification from Andrew before engaging in their discussion. “Church” is so often equated to Christian when it really is an inherited legacy that is being expressed. God makes Christians (one by one) not churches. It wasn’t until I was 28 years old –well into what became a navy career that I caught on. I finally HEARD the message. I call it the Great Trade. It is a very uneven even trade if you take it seriously. It changed not only my thinking but it changed me. It simply yet profoundly goes like this: “My life for yours,” and it was spoken from the cross.
Unlike my wings, I realized I could not earn anything with God. I could only respond to Him on His terms. So the issue comes down to Authority and its revelation which is Ken Ham’s ultimate message. Everything that works has to have a final authority to make sense. Like a land survey needs a bench mark a song needs a key. You can choose not to conform but you will not know where you are on a map and when you sing, you will empty a room.
We are rebels, we earthlings. That is our nature and legacy. Rebels are not big on authoritarian scenarios. They prefer to believe what they prefer to be true. I am still like that in less dominating ways…but that does not make my proper response to just authority any less the order of things and continues to make me a work in process.
It was an apologetic message that I heard that day. Since my heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects, it hit me where I lived. As a serious thinker, I am drawn to the 4 deadly questions of inquiry. So I’ll close this rambling with a little slogan on authority that has held true to my experience in the physical and metaphysical realms:
Since no effect is greater than its cause; affect the Cause and the Cause will affect the effect.
I
Do I have to be the one to point out that the guy in the picture is Beakman from “Beakman’s World” and not Bill Nye. I liked Beakman’s world better.
I don’t care what anybody says. Bill is an atheist meaning DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. And I don’t think that people should be “siding” with anyone because that causes controversy between Christians and non-Christians because we, as Christians, are supposed to be bringing non-Christians into the light and showing them the way to God.
I assume you are siding with Christ?
UH…. just wanted you to know your second photo above is NOT of Bill Nye – that’s Beakman’s World. Surely you can tell the two apart.
Woo! Clownish entertainer wins, 93% to 7%!!
Poll is down the page here:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bill.nye.vs.ken.ham.debate.live.stream.free.watch.online.creation.vs.evolution.debate.here.start.time/35688.htm
I made myself listen to the whole debate while working at my desk today. What a circus. I wish Nye had just buried Ham with scorn but he was trying to be nice.
And not one time was it brought up, fine, you want to believe this and be a super-Christian with all your magical thinking, cool, discuss it in comparative religion or some afterschool club. It’s not science and has no place in Biology class.
And if you want real cynicism…this is part of the plan for a pliable citizenry who are too dumb to ask questions or reason things out. Noting, we have actual elected politicians who actually say that we don’t have to worry about climate change because either “Jesus is coming back and he’ll fix it,” or “God promised us no more floods after that whole Noah incident.”
that “clownish entertainer” as you call him, has a degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University.
yeah. sit down.
Well that’s… Not very impressive, actually. Mechanical engineering is barely science.
You Moron, That’s not even Bill Nye.
Bill Nye knows all.
You don’t deserve the internet.
Please tell me how Jesus is more then Krishna and Thor?
That’s a picture of Beakman, not Bill Nye, Dummy. Use google next time, it’s free