I'm sure most of you probably heard about the debate between Answers in
Genesis founder Ken Ham and Bill Nye, "The Science Guy", which took
place on February 4th. A lot of you have probably even watched it online. If
you haven’t (shame on you), you can do so Here
- and I strongly recommend that you do. As in, go there right now and don't
finish reading this post until you have.Are we good? Good.
My work schedule prevented me watching the debate live, but I was able to see it the next day. Since then, quite a few people have asked me for my thoughts about it, so I decided I might as well write up a post on my opinions and put it up here. Enjoy! : )
In talking to people about the debate, one of the most common things I've heard is disappointment that Ken Ham wasn't bold enough or aggressive enough in his presentation. Honestly, I was floored the first time I heard this. Set aside the fact that, in general, accusing Ken Ham of not being bold is roughly equal to calling Ronald Reagan a liberal; looking specifically at the scenario of the debate, I saw no difference. Ken Ham was assertive in his presentation and gave no ground to Bill Nye's arguments, but he did so while remaining completely respectful and professional about it.
The trouble is, there is a very fine line between "Bold" and "In-your-face," and all too often people with good intentions and a lot of passion inadvertently cross that line, making themselves seem extremely obnoxious. When that happens, people stop listening. Proverbs 16 tells us that pleasant words are persuasive, and 1 Peter tells us to defend our faith with gentleness and respect. Ken Ham's presentation and conduct were pleasant, polite, gentle, respectful, and considerate... and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Even atheists who watched the debate have posted comments on Facebook and Twitter commending Mr. Ham for his professional and polite behavior.
I found this to be especially refreshing when put in contrast to Mr. Nye's attitude of mockery and condescension. I must admit that I was a bit bewildered by his multiple insinuations directed not just towards creationists specifically, but towards Kentuckians in general, telling them in one case that they should be very concerned that no university in their state offered such-and-such a degree. As if just having the Creation Museum and (in the near future) the Ark Encounter in their state has somehow already set them on a path of scientific decline. Mr. Nye is not the first to suggest that the mere presence of AiG's facilities on Kentucky soil is having detrimental effects on the state, and I am certain he will not be the last, but honestly it's a very shoddy argument--if it can even be considered an argument at all.
I was also very annoyed by Mr. Nye's incessant referrals to "Ken Ham's creation model," "Ken Ham's flood," etc, as if Mr. Ham is the first person in history to believe these things, or just makes them up while the rest of us fall blindly into line as his little cult followers. In the first place, Mr. Nye should review his history books: mankind believed in a divine creation first, long before anyone ever thought of evolution, and that belief has never disappeared despite any and all efforts to extinguish it. And while naturalist theories of origins are not as new as many people believe, they’re still the new kids on the block by comparison.
Furthermore, although Ken Ham has definitely become a figurehead of the creation science and apologetics movement, it’s not because it’s all his idea. With all due respect and admiration for Mr. Ham, I would believe in biblical creation with or without him. My belief is dependent on the word of God, not on anything Ken Ham or anyone else says or does. Yes, Ken Ham has been an immense encouragement to me in my beliefs and ministry; I have learned more from him about science, theology, witnessing, and apologetics than I can say, and I know many others can say the same thing. But Ken Ham is not the reason I believe in a literal six days, a roughly-6,000-year-old earth, or a global flood. I believe it because the God Who cannot lie said it, clearly and explicitly.
It was obvious from statements made throughout the debate that Mr. Nye enjoys thinking of himself as “a reasonable man” whose beliefs are based entirely on logic and facts rather than faith. This became very ironic when, in response to one of Mr. Nye’s repeated assertions that creationism is detrimental to scientific progress and discovery, Ken Ham pointed out various scientists responsible for wonderful inventions and discoveries—such as the MRI machine—who were also devout young-earth creationists. Now, a man who was truly reasonable would look at this evidence and rightly deduce that creationism doesn’t actually impede progress and discovery after all. But that was not Mr. Nye’s response. He completely ignored this devastating rebuttal of his assertion and kept right on repeating it, going so far as to say that if creationism is allowed to propagate, science in the United States will deteriorate to the point that we lose our position as a world power and a leader in technology.
His patriotism is commendable, but once again, he needs to check his history books. America rose from being a collection of half-starved colonies to being a major world power long before the ideas of evolution were generally accepted. Granted, not all of those who helped found and build this country were creationists or even Christians, but those people were the minority. The United States was founded on Christian principles by a majority of people who believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. So how is it that those same beliefs are, according to Mr. Nye, going to be America’s downfall? It would seem he is not quite as reasonable as he likes to believe.
When you watch the debate, make sure you stick around for the Q&A at the end. In my opinion, it does more to reveal the true nature of the overall creation/evolution debate than any other part of the production. I won’t discuss the whole thing here—this post is way too long already—but I will point out a couple of things that really jumped out at me.
1. Throughout the debate, but particularly towards the end, Mr. Nye begged Ken Ham for examples of the creation model of origins accurately predicting a scientific discovery. Besides ignoring the order and function in the world that could not exist were nature all that exists, Mr. Nye is exposing an enormous blind spot in his ideas. He can’t see the forest for the trees, as it were. The fact that we can predict anything, the fact that we can know anything, the fact that laws of nature and logic and physics exist, can only be explained if the Bible is, in fact, true! If nature were all there was, there would be no laws of logic. If the laws of nature were the only force governing the matter in the universe, that matter could never have randomly arranged itself via chaotic processes into orderly, functional forms. The only reason science is possible is because there is an order, a design, and unchanging laws of nature and logic, set into place by an orderly, creative, unchanging and logical Creator.
2. In response to the question “What would make you change your mind?” Mr. Nye stated the following: “We would need one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil that swam from one layer [of sedimentary rock] to the next. We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not. We would need evidence that rock layers can form in 4,000 years instead of an extraordinary amount... Bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately.”
That sounds great on the surface—Mr. Nye, that “reasonable man” he loves to call himself, is just following the evidence where it leads him, open to the possibility of being wrong—but if you take his statement apart and look closely it’s a different story.
“We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to the next.” This deserves a discussion unto itself, one we don’t have time for here. For now, suffice it to say that there are fish fossilized across multiple layers of sediment, not to mention polystrate trees that, while they aren’t living creatures that would try to swim out of the layers burying them, certainly won’t last for thousands or millions of years to be fossilized gradually.
“We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding. We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not.” These are both very telling statements. Both the universe’s expansion and the distances of the stars are well-established, so by implying that one cannot believe in both these and in creationism, Mr. Nye is bringing back the age-old accusation, “Creationists deny the facts of science!” The truth is just the opposite. There is no reason whatsoever that a young-earth (biblical) creationist cannot believe that the universe is expanding or that the stars are very far away. The Bible itself alludes to the universe’s expansion when it describes God “stretching out the heavens” and there are solid scientific answers to the question of how starlight reaches the earth within a 6,000 year timeframe, even from such great distances.
“We would need evidence that rock layers can form in 4,000 years instead of an extraordinary amount.” The Mt. Saint Helens eruption of 1980 provided all the evidence any “reasonable man” should need to believe that. Rock layers were formed over periods of hours, days, and weeks that, according to evolutionary timescales, should have taken thousands of years or more to appear—irrefutable proof that, given the right catastrophic conditions, it only takes a little while.
So why, then, has Mr. Nye not “changed immediately” as he said he would if given this evidence? The answer is simple: his problem with creationism is not an intellectual problem, or an ignorance problem. It is a heart problem. The truth of creation necessarily means the existence of a Creator. The existence of a Creator equals moral accountability for the creation, and that is something that few people are willing to accept. Evolution is not the problem, it is a symptom, and a shelter that lost souls can run to for assurance of safety without having to acknowledge the lordship of Christ.
I would encourage all of you to pray earnestly for Mr. Nye, that his heart would be softened and that he would be willing to swallow his pride and acknowledge the Creator and Savior Who loves him very much.
*
So what? What did this debate (which has been referred to as everything from “The Debate of the Century” to “Scopes 2”) really accomplish?
Quite a lot, my friends, quite a lot. Of course there is the tremendous outreach value it has had and is still having. In addition to the 900 who actually attended the event live, millions have watched online and on the new DVD. Major news channels broadcasted coverage and excerpts of the debate. One way or another, untold millions have seen and heard a skillful presentation of the evidence for creation and of the gospel, the reason creation matters at all.
Additionally, a topic that has been challenging to get discussed in public forums has suddenly hit the mainstream and gone completely viral. The debate was the number one trending topic on Facebook and Twitter for several hours before and after it took place. Countless blogs and other social media pages have hosted discussions and subsequent debates. Personally, I have had total strangers hear me mention the debate and want to talk to me about it. This is a current event, a hot topic that people are interested in and want to talk about. Don’t let that go to waste! Christians, an incredible opening has been created for us. Watch the debate, then go out and start talking. Don’t waste this awesome opportunity.
Questions, thoughts, comments? I'd love to hear your take on the debate and get some discussion going. (hint-hint)
Mary,
ReplyDeleteI watched the debate just this morning and I didn't find it a particularly good showing for either side. Ken Ham could have said much more in response to Nye's predictability question and barely discussed Intelligent Design, which is, in my view, a major point. He also did not answer age of the universe questions well and delved into Biblical issues that don't directly relate to Creation (I understand why he did so, but it was not good form in a debate).
Nye made profoundly ignorant statements on the Bible and the ark and was smug and insulting at times to Kentucky and Creationists. He also asked some good questions on predictability and some other topics, but made serious mistakes in talking about technological development when Ken Ham's cited Creationists were mostly technologists.
I'm actually surprised that the mediocre performance on both sides has gathered so much attention. I suppose perhaps most people really drawn by this particular showing have not seen a previous debate on this topic...
Thanks for that summary, I can remember having some of those same thoughts while I was watching the debate. I even remember joking at one point that according to Mr. Nye, I would be considered a "Hamian" since I believed in "Ken Ham's Flood". :)
ReplyDeleteI do believe that good things can and will be brought out of this debate, and Mr. Nye is in my prayers. Thanks again for sharing Mary!
This is an excellent review!
ReplyDeleteNye's arguments were less convincing than Ham's, to be honest. Reading Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" currently, and he confirms that the Pilgrims (namely Puritans and other staunch religious folk) who came to America ardently emphasized education and public subsidies. "Enlightened" people often denigrate theists as anti-science and enemies of learning, but they're flat-out incorrect. It's no more than a personal attack by Nye to contend that the only "reasonable" people are not young-Earth Creationists such as Ham and should be ignored.
ReplyDeleteHam's statements were not without flaws, however. His reliance upon the Bible resounds with his "choir," but does little to sway atheists, agnostics, and skeptics in this debate's viewership. His skills in oration are commendable, but the content of his message, I fear, will not do much mind-changing.
I must disagree with your rebuttal regarding the age of lithology. Crystallization doesn't occur overnight. Granites, for example, are plutonic rocks; they simply cannot form over such a short period of time. The size of quartz phenocrysts, the strong cleavage planes of feldspars, and the proliferation of sizable biotite are too substantial to have formed over the course of that minimal a time period. I'm perusing Snelling's article on "Catastrophic Granite Formation," as it's titled, but I remain unconvinced. I'd have to see some samples of the evidence for his conclusions, and alas, there are few figures he offers to substantiate his claim. (source: my educational background is in geology and geophysics)
"Irrefutable proof" of a possiblity is one thing, but it remains only a possibility. The crust is a thin skin for the Earth, but we're barely scratching the surface of it as of now. Over the years, I've concluded that "settled science" is a misnomer, since we continue to learn more and more about our universe. Thus, I constantly remain skeptical, and I bristle when people assert things to me in this fasion, regardless of the side it originates from.
I actually don't care which (if either) happen to be true. Uniformitarian evolution or catastrophic Creationism, it doesn't matter to me. God's Creation is a mystery, one I merely do not believe we've solved as wholly as most are so certain about. ;-)
[His reliance upon the Bible resounds with his “choir,” but does little to sway atheists, agnostics, and skeptics in this debate’s viewership. His skills in oration are commendable, but the content of his message, I fear, will not do much mind-changing.]
DeleteA lot of people think we can’t use the Bible when debating someone who doesn’t believe it to be true, but that is not so. The idea that setting the Bible aside for a debate somehow puts the Christian and the atheist on “Neutral Ground” is incorrect. Jesus made it very clear when He said “Whoever is not with Me is against me” that there is no neutral ground. There is “With the Bible” and “Without the Bible” and if we set the Bible aside for a debate we have already stepped onto the atheist’s territory and accepted his (unreasonable) terms of engagement. Why should I set aside my beliefs if he doesn’t have to set aside his? If I set aside the Bible, I have put down my most effective weapon and I’m fighting in my own strength, not God’s. In Ephesians 6 Paul talks about the armor of God and calls the Bible our sword. Taking it with us into battle is commanded, not suggested. What kind of soldier lays his weapon down before walking onto the battlefield?
Furthermore, the Bible is the written word of the God Who knows all, created all, and cannot lie. He knows what He’s talking about, and He can speak for Himself. He doesn’t need my opinions or observations to prove that He’s telling the truth. He alone can answer questions such as “How did consciousness come from matter?”—which Bill Nye and his evolutionary views failed to do when asked during the debate. God has said that His word will not return void, and it’s the only weapon in the world that comes with that guarantee. We cannot lay it down when we enter a debate. If we do, we may as well surrender because we’ve already lost.
[I really don’t care which (I either) happen to be true. Uniformitarian evolution or catastrophic Creationism, it doesn’t matter to me. God’s Creation is a mystery, one I merely do not believe we’ve solved as wholly as most are so certain about. ;-)]
DeleteThere are two major problems with that line of thinking, Alek.
The first one is that the method of creation speaks about the character of the Creator. Carl Sagan defined evolution as “time plus death,” and Richard Dawkins has remarked that “evolution at its rawest is incredibly cruel”. The fossil record shows animals with diseases, tumors, and injuries, and even animals eating each other. Granting for the sake of argument that uniformitarian evolution is scientifically possible, death is an essential ingredient and we would have to believe that these things (death, disease, etc.) existed before mankind evolved, certainly before he had rebelled against God.
But the Bible says that when He had finished His work of creation, God called everything very good. Do we serve a sadistic monster who looks at violence and disease and calls it “very good”? No. The Bible says death is an enemy, and that it entered the world through man’s sin. God is love, and He cares about His creation. He provides for it in its fallen state, but that does not mean that things are now as He created them to be. God doesn’t work by trial and error, and He doesn’t need millions of years of death and natural selection to weed out the mistakes. He created mankind in His image, complete and perfect. He is not the one who brought death and suffering into the world. We are.
The second problem is simply that God tells us in His word, using clear, specific language, how He created the world and all that is in it. The vocabulary, grammar, context and plain meaning of the Genesis account of creation leave no room for anything but six literal, 24-hour days in which God spoke and things came into being, perfect and complete from the beginning.
If we believe God to be Who He says He is, and we believe the Bible to be His word, then we cannot consistently believe that the Genesis account of creation is not accurate. If there are inaccuracies in Genesis, then the Bible is not inerrant, God is a liar, and in the words of the apostle Paul “We are of all men most miserable”.
As you said, “settled science is a misnomer”. The things scientists know or think they know change faster than Parisian fashion designs. So rather than trying to compromise their theories with your beliefs, why not just take the word of the One Who was there, the One Who actually knows what happened?
If you insist on basing your beliefs of ancient history on the Bible, your opponents will insist on validating the Bible’s credibility before debating anything else. To them, what the Bible purports are unresolved (sometimes untested) scientific theories. Saying “He doesn’t need my opinions or observations to prove that He’s telling the truth,” I agree with, but will not convince others. In fact, it’ll likely be a major turn-off for debate. They’ll call it a “cop-out” and cease taking you seriously. “Because the Bible says so” is an awful way to debate, however true it is, because they don’t “believe” it’s the Word of God.
DeleteThe point about the harshness of evolution is a good one. Death, human death at least, was an impossibility before sin entered the world. But the flip side of that runs into an issue with Creationism because it doesn’t explain how animals, including Adam and Eve, were sustained before the Fall. Does this apply to animals as well? What about plants and microorganisms? The way you’ve framed your argument, it appears as though God “magically” supported everyone and everything. It calls into question our understanding of ecosystems and wildlife interactions. It again appears to be a “cop-out” to those who disagree. Not impossible for an omnipotent God, but not awfully satisfying or resounding either.
I’m not suggesting that you set aside your principles for the sake of discourse. It’s actually a great thing you support your views so ardently. I’m only saying that your methods of expressing those beliefs can improve, because as they stand, I do not predict them winning many hearts and minds.
I bring up the theories of those who dissent with you because I believe they have some validity to them. As well, it’s imperative that we Christians try to see the world in their view so that we know the path of logic (or lack thereof) they've followed. Like attaching a video camera to a bird, I want to understand where they’re coming from, just as we’d want them to comprehend “our” point of view as Christians. I believe in an objective Truth and I believe the Bible is the inerrant source of that Truth. But we humans are oft incorrect in our interpretations of both the world and the Word. I believe in the Bible, but when a discrepancy arises between what the Scripture says and what I empirically observe (zircon, carbon, and potassium isotope age dating; orogenesis; sedimentary processes; or magma formation, for examples), I have to question my own understanding, either of what I read in the Word or what I see in the world. Thus, I don’t question your Source; I question your understanding of that Source, as well as your extrapolations of the Earth around you.
[If you insist on basing your beliefs of ancient history on the Bible, your opponents will insist on validating the Bible’s credibility before debating anything else.]
DeleteWell, the Bible is, after all, the entire reason I bother to debate these things with anyone, and it is more than capable of establishing its own validity, so why would I be anything but happy when my “opponent” wants to do just that? It goes back to my previous statement about doing these things in God’s strength, not my own. His Word will stand up to an infinitely greater amount of scrutiny than anything I may say, so “resorting” to its credibility is actually a shelter for me. Don’t make it sound like such a bad thing. ; )
BTW, if we’ve prefaced it with a discussion “validating the Bible’s credibility” (regardless of whether the skeptic is willing to admit that credibility), then “Because the Bible says so” becomes a perfectly valid argument.
That being said, I never use “Because the Bible says so” and leave it at just that when debating. Now, I will frequently say something like “God has confirmed beyond doubt that He is trustworthy through [insert examples from science, fulfilled prophesy, the self-authenticating nature of scripture, etc.], so I believe what the Bible says even when I find something in it I don’t completely understand,” but I have never had an atheist cease taking me seriously or accuse me of “copping out” as a result. In fact one atheist with whom I had shared that very argument remarked that I was the first Christian she had ever talked to who actually knew what they were talking about and had solid reasons for what they believed.
And if an atheist wants to talk about unresolved or untested scientific theories, that’s just fine with me. Let’s start with the Oort cloud and Darwinian macro-evolution. ; )
Regarding your remarks and questions about the death/sin relationship, let me first get a minor detail out of the way by saying that the Bible does not classify plants as “alive” in the same way humans and animals are alive, so consumption of plants was not a problem for the pre-sin world, but I want to take a much more serious and in-depth look at some of your other statements in that same paragraph.
Delete[Death, human death at least, was an impossibility before sin entered the world.]
The Bible does not say “human death entered the world through sin,” it says “death entered the world through sin.” Allowing the possibility of the animal death and disease we see in the fossil record being remnants of the pre-curse world is once again allowing a holy, loving God, the Great Physician, to call things like arthritis and violence and cancer and injuries “very good,” and it calls into question how Jesus’ sacrifice for sins could have conquered death if sin wasn’t what brought death into existence in the first place.
[But the flip side of that runs into an issue with Creationism because it doesn’t explain how animals, including Adam and Eve, were sustained before the Fall. The way you’ve framed your argument, it appears as though God “magically” supported everyone and everything.... Not impossible for an omnipotent God, but not awfully satisfying or resounding, either.]
It’s not the way I’ve framed my argument, Alek. It’s what the God Who cannot lie says in His Word. That same God is a God of infinite power, Who does not need to “magically” do anything. Creation was a supernatural event, and the pre-curse world was supernaturally sustained. No, for an atheist who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, that isn’t going to be very “satisfying or resounding,” but the fact is that God is a supernatural Being and we can’t skirt around that just to make our argument look better to someone the Bible calls lost and blind. If they’re going to come to a belief in God, they need to believe in the right God, the God of the Bible, and the bottom line is that He is beyond and outside of the natural world whether we like that or not. To try to change that or represent Him as being otherwise to accommodate sinful humans’ (un)willingness to believe is both idolatry and blasphemy.
Also, Adam and Eve were not animals. God said “let Us make man in Our own image.” Human beings are unique from everything else in creation. You said in your initial comment that you don’t care whether the world came about via evolution or “catastrophic creationism” (whatever that means), and yet your deliberate inclusion of Adam and Eve in the “animal” category betrays a strong predisposition towards uniformitarianism...
[It calls into question our understanding of ecosystems and wildlife interactions.]
...as does this statement, which also rings of the idea that biblical creationists deny the facts of science. There is no reason that ecosystems, symbiotic relationships, etc. cannot fit into the biblical account of creation. These are systems designed by God that have adapted to conditions brought about by the curse, by means of natural selection and the variability potential programmed into their DNA from the beginning.
[As well, it’s imperative that we Christians try to see the world in their view so that we know the path of logic (or lack thereof) they've followed.]
DeleteTo a point I agree, and that’s precisely why I study the work of men like Darwin and Dawkins and Hawking, so I know exactly what their arguments are and how to prepare for them. But as for knowing “where they’re coming from,” the Bible gives us all the answer we need: they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. God has crafted His creation in such a way as to make His existence undeniable, “so that they are without excuse”. There is nothing logical about their arguments, just as there is nothing logical about uniformitarian evolution (a term which is itself an oxymoron). They are simply unwilling to submit to the authority of a Creator. It is a heart problem, not a knowledge problem.
[I believe in an objective Truth and I believe the Bible is the inerrant source of that Truth. But we humans are oft incorrect in our interpretations of both the world and the Word....Thus, I don’t question your Source; I question your understanding of that Source, as well as your extrapolations of the Earth around you.]
I may not be the brightest light in the harbor, Alek, but that’s part of the beauty of scripture: I don’t have to be! The Bible says that it “makes wise the simple”. If that’s going to happen, the simple have to be able to understand it, don’t they? Now of course I’m not saying that I understand every verse of the Bible or that I have interpreted every one of them 100% correctly, but I am saying that God’s Word is clear. He said what He meant and He meant what He said. I don’t see my “extrapolations” as such, because that word implies carrying a principle beyond where it should or was intended to go. A good scientific model must explain all existing observations, yes? Well, I’ve yet to observe or study anything in the natural world that doesn’t fit perfectly within the scientific model of origins presented in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. God put those chapters there to explain “the Earth around us.”
[I believe in the Bible, but when a discrepancy arises between what the Scripture says and what I empirically observe (zircon, carbon, and potassium isotope age dating; orogenesis; sedimentary processes; or magma formation, for examples), I have to question my own understanding, either of what I read in the Word or what I see in the world.]
Every one of your examples is, in context, overflowing with uniformitarian assumptions, Alek. Once again you’re betraying a predisposition to that worldview. Throw off that influence and trust in the authority and perspicuity of the Bible, and the testimony of the One Who was there and saw it happen. There is certainly a place for prayerfully questioning your interpretation of difficult passages of the Bible, and for careful analysis of our scientific observations, but when it comes to Genesis don’t feel like you have to either question your interpretation of the Word or your observations of the world. The alleged discrepancy is caused by the influence of uniformitarian interpretations of the data, not by the existence of the data itself.
Finally, as for your prediction that my methods and arguments will not convince or win many hearts or minds: convincing and winning are listed nowhere in the job description of a Christian evangelist. Convincing and winning are the job of the Holy Spirit—our task is just to wield His sword, the Word of God (Word of God, mind you, not the theories or opinions of man). With all due respect, I’m more concerned about following God’s instructions than I am about your predictions.
Please forgive me if my words regarding your understanding of Scripture or nature offended you. That was not my intent and I see how my words may have been taken that way. I’ve a few gigabytes empty on the hard drive myself. ;-)
Delete“…but when it comes to Genesis don’t feel like you have to either question your interpretation of the Word or your observations of the world. The alleged discrepancy is caused by the influence of uniformitarian interpretations of the data, not by the existence of the data itself.” Then it has to be proved to me how those interpretations are wrong. If I interpret the initial chapter of Genesis to represent the Earth as merely ~6,000 years old, but then empirically observe through zircon dating that a rock sample is tens of thousands of years old, there’s a discrepancy, and it must be resolved in my mind before I am convinced in any way, much less prepared to convince others. Plate tectonic theory is a very new explanation (50-60 years old) in geology that wasn’t accepted previously due to its incredulous nature at the time, as well as the amount of established scientists who didn’t want to be proven wrong. The same thing happened three centuries ago to James Hutton when he first introduced the idea of uniformitarianism.
Again, put yourself in the shoes of one who staunchly supports uniformitarian theories, equally zealous in their beliefs as you are now in catastrophism. They’re going to want to see data confirming each proposal. They’re going to want logical explanations with a clear line of reasoning. If the supernatural is involved, they are going to want proof that an Almighty exists and that He is sufficiently powerful to supply this extraordinary Creation, which may even require a philosophical, theological discussion before the scientific one.
“…convincing and winning are listed nowhere in the job description of a Christian evangelist. Convincing and winning are the job of the Holy Spirit…” Not my point, plus Jesus calls us to be “fishers of men.” I understand that only the Spirit can make a difference and that our words are meaningless without God behind them/providing them. But we are called to share the word of God to the rest of the world; it is my belief that we should do so convincingly.
As you say, the heart of the unbelieving individual is the crux of the matter. At that point, however, I see little reason to try and debate with them in the first place. If they are so adamant, our time would be better spent elsewhere.
Your very kind and humble apology is sincerely appreciated, Alek, but entirely unnecessary. I took no offense whatsoever at your words, nor did I believe you had intended them offensively. Believe me, I have enough experience to know when someone is trying to insult me. ; ) But again, thank you for your kindness and humility.
Delete[Then it has to be proved to me how those interpretations are wrong.]
They are wrong because they start with incorrect assumptions. Data does not speak for itself, we speak for it. For instance, a fossilized fish does not come with a tag stating “I’m 40 million years old.” Secular scientists guess its age based on the rock layer it was found in, and they figure the age of the rock layer by uniformitarian methods—they assume that the rate at which rock layers form today is the rate at which they have always formed, which is in turn inextricably linked to their presupposition that the earth is many millions or billions of years old (a presupposition born of their desire to eliminate creation’s need for a Creator). On the other hand, a biblical creationist starts with the Bible’s straightforward account and the (comparatively) young age it presents for the earth (which, by the way, is not determined from the first chapter of Genesis as you suggested, but rather by adding ages from the genealogies given throughout the book), and approaches the data with the presupposition that the Bible is accurate. If the Bible is accurate, there is not time for all of these rock layers to form at the same rates which we observe today. But science has proven over and over that large-scale catastrophes can accelerate processes such as rock formation, erosion, etc. and a global flood as described beginning in Genesis 6 fits the bill perfectly. There is simply no need for millions or billions of years.
You yourself made an important point: “Settled science is a misnomer.” The “foolproof” dating methods accepted today might be rejected tomorrow—the sooner the better, if you ask me, since they’re not nearly as precise and watertight as the secular scientific community would have us believe. You’re very concerned about discrepancies between Genesis and the results of uniformitarian dating methods... but have you examined the discrepancies within the uniformitarian dating methods themselves?
[They’re going to want logical explanations with a clear line of reasoning. If the supernatural is involved, they are going to want proof that an Almighty exists and that He is sufficiently powerful to supply this extraordinary Creation, which may even require a philosophical, theological discussion before the scientific one.]
You hit the nail on the head without knowing it, Alek. They want proof of a Creator, and they want that proof to be logical because they believe in the laws of logic. But their worldview offers no reason whatsoever to believe in any such thing! You can’t trip over or inhale a law of logic because it isn’t material, so how did it come to exist? Likewise, they believe in the laws of nature, and the scientific method is dependent on those laws being unchanging. But those very laws of nature as they stand today render uniformitarian evolution utterly impossible, so if evolution is true they must have changed at some point in the past. If the laws of nature are “subject to change without notice,” then all of science has been rendered completely pointless.
Only a biblical worldview offers any reason to believe in unchanging laws of nature and logic, and only the Bible’s model of origins offers an explanation of how these laws came into being. That’s about as convincing as it gets.
[As you say, the heart of the unbelieving individual is the crux of the matter. At that point, however, I see little reason to try and debate with them in the first place.]
DeleteWe debate with them not to change their heart, but in the hope of tearing down some of the walls they have built around their hearts. Of course we must do so skillfully and with the best, most convincing arguments we possibly can—no one is arguing about that—but the point is that they must be willing to see and acknowledge the truth in our arguments. You might be standing right in front of me trying to convince me that you’re real, but if I’m covering my eyes or turning my head away, I won’t see you. I have to be willing to uncover my eyes and look at you, and even then I have to be willing to admit that I see you. As Christians, our job is to tell people that the truth is there, right in front of them. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict and persuade them to open their eyes and acknowledge what they see.
[If they are so adamant, our time would be better spent elsewhere.]
That’s a very pragmatic but rather heartless perspective, if I may say so. Think for a moment about someone very close to you—your wife, your best friend, a sibling or parent, someone you love deeply. Picture that person in your head and think about everything you love about him or her. Now imagine that he or she goes to the doctor for a checkup and after a few tests the doctor sits down and says “I am very sorry, but you have cancer. We need to begin treatments right away if we’re going to save your life.” But they don’t believe the doctor because they feel fine (as my grandfather did up until three weeks before lymphoma took his life), so they see no reason to go through the pain and expense of treatments. Now, a doctor with the coldly practical perspective that you stated above might just shrug his shoulders and say “Oh well, if (s)he is so adamant I might as well spend my time on patients who realize that they’re sick and need my help.” But is that what you would want that doctor to do? No way! You love this person, so you’re going to want the doctor to do everything in his power to convince them that they’re ill and in desperate need of his help. You’d be furious if he just shrugged his shoulders and walked out. You’d say (correctly) that he was a terrible doctor, and you’d probably try to have him punished for malpractice. You’d take your loved one to a different doctor, one who actually cared and was dedicated to trying to get them to see the gravity of their situation so that they could be healed.
This analogy uses the example of a person’s physical, mortal body, but how much more precious is a person’s immortal soul? We are talking about the choice between eternal life and eternal death here, Alek. Christ loves every human being dearly, and if we love Him, we can’t become callous to those He loves and brush them off just because they’re stubborn. Did you repent and surrender the very first moment you felt Him calling and convicting you? What if He had just brushed you off?
Of course at the end of the day no one can be forced to accept medical treatments against their will. Likewise, Christ never forces anyone to repent and trust Him against their wishes. But until that person crosses the threshold of death (at which point it is too late) He never gives up on them, so as His servant I will never give up on an atheist either, God help me. That’s why I still pray for men like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, men who are about as adamant in their rejection of God as it is possible to be, in the hope that they may yet acknowledge their Creator and throw themselves upon His saving grace before it is too late.
The biggest thing that does annoy me about evolution is that those who do believe it claim they are looking at scientific facts around them and they have proof, but they are ignoring the real proof. All around there are things which go against evolution, all through history in fact, but they are continually ignored.If they are so confident about their belief then why do they keep teaching things that have been proven false?
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I was naughty. I didn't go and listen to the debate before reading. I plan to, I've been wanting to. I will have to save it for after finals though, or listen to it in fragments. I might have to go with the fragments.
I agree that the hubris of many scientists is daunting. When I took my intro. paleontology class and sedimentology and stratigraphy course, I was astounded by the amount of extrapolation done by the professors as if that was the only way to interpret things, as if their conclusions were irrefutable. (we were still encouraged to offer different hypotheses, despite being a secular state university)
ReplyDeleteHowever, your statement that uniformitarian scientists assuming formation rates are constant is derived from their belief that it’s millions/billions of years old does not follow. It’s entirely possible that that belief is a conclusion from their understanding of formation rates from the rock. It’s not an inherent cause; it’s an effect from a different cause, at least as a possibility. For example, I see a rock, I study the rock using half-life decay dating methods, I determine the rock is millions of years old based on the math of that decay rate, and thus create the discrepancy between empirical observations and biblical interpretations. My conclusion is not an assumption based on a preconceived belief that the Earth “must” be millions of years old. Put flatly, it’s disingenuous to assume that secular scientists employ uniformitarian methods strictly to prove a God wasn’t necessary to create the universe. Some do, no doubt, but to presume that of all hinders the conversation.
I question the validity of current dating methods too, but they seem very solid in terms of accuracy, precision, and consistency across isotopes. They don’t have my 100% seal of scientific approval, but they appear reputable enough.
There comes a point in every disagreement where the heart of the opponent has zero chance of swaying. They are not open to the ideas of their critics at all. I’ve done my fair share of debating on the Internet, and have had some heated discussions in real life. I know when a conversation will no longer bear any fruit, when iron stops sharpening other iron and just beats a dead horse. If the heart of the evolutionist cannot be moved, all our best arguments won’t make a difference, no matter how true. It’s up to the Spirit and the individual then. We both know that and we can’t force them to see God’s Truth. We should always be willing to discuss the subject with them again in the future, of course, but at that point, the initiation must come from the other party, because while our interest is unabated, theirs is not open to the possibility that our beliefs are correct. Because it must come from their hearts, let it come from “their” hearts.
This is a late comment, I know...
ReplyDelete... I watched the debate live. Bill Nye revealed his ignorance in a very annoying way when he kept suggesting that the Bible we read in English is abscuredly different from the original text, and that Ken Ham's views are an arbitrary interpretation of it.
Ignorant.
Agreed, I found his incessant references to "Ken Ham's creation model" and "Ken Ham's flood" extremely aggravating.
Delete