A young intellectual offers this summary review. Read his full commentary, here. What follows, here, is Kyle McDonald's conclusion.
This is the section where I will speak my opinion on the debate. Overall I don’t think anyone “won” the debate. I believe Ken Ham did a much better job in his opening statements than Bill Nye did but the rest of the debate was fairly even as far as evidence and arguments go. I am very pleased with how both men handled themselves and there did not seem to be any mean spiritedness within the debate and I commend them both for that. Although I have been to the creation museum before I had not listened to Ken Ham too much before this debate and I was thoroughly impressed. He clearly spoke the gospel and the truths of God’s word multiple times unashamedly. He brought forth viable evidence for the creationist point of view and I believe he accomplished what he set out to do. Ham showed that creation has scientific evidence and should be taken seriously by the scientific community. The point of a debate of this nature is not necessarily to change the mind of your opponent but rather lay out the evidence for your point of view. I thank Ken Ham for his heart for creationism, literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account and seeking to represent the truth of God’s word. Bill Nye did a very commendable job even though many were saying he was not fit to debate on this topic.
I am excited to see the conversation this debate will bring up among people. I will be praying that God will use this in mighty ways and praise Him for it’s immediate effect. I ask my fellow christians to not back down from conversation but embrace it, be educated on it and proclaim the love of our Lord Jesus Christ and the truth God has revealed in His word for us.
The reason there is such a debate is ignorance. Evolution, age of the earth, and other science is not something one "believes" ... it is something you know to be true because you understand the supporting evidence brought by observation and confirmed by intersecting streams of undisputed scientific fact (math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc..)
ReplyDeleteBecause you are ignorant of the evidence, or don't understand it, you have no right to impose a supernatural 'belief system' in it's place. Belief systems among the weak minded become fact through "faith." Faith doesn't require the verification of evidence. Of course you get snake oil salesmen like Ken Ham that 'sound scientific' to the average teavangelical, and that's usually good enough for their poor level of critical thinking and low level of scientific literacy.
Ken Ham compared Bill Nye to Eve in offering from "the Tree of Knowledge" ... thats how much Christians respect knowledge.
Undisputed facts? So why are fossilized remains found in rock strata dated before and after these animals were said to exist? Why did science have to drastically amend its theory as to the so-called "big bang" with the first returned rocks from the moon? Why does man have a religious and moral conscience when no other animal life does? Such certainly is not necessary for the survival of the species.
ReplyDeleteYou write: "Faith doesn't require the verification of evidence." Neither does the existence of any number of mathematical postulates - axiomatic formulas without mathematical explanation except that (so far) they work."
Like I said, ignorance - which Smithson has just demonstrated - doesn't give anyone the right to impose a supernatural 'belief system' in it's place.
ReplyDelete