We read reports of those on the right causing dissention, dividing, being bigoted, etc.. In those spheres there is no disagreement, so it must be true. We read reports of those on the left causing dissention, dividing, being bigoted, etc.. In those spheres there is … Continue reading To my friends both right and left
The debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye went as many perceived it would. Both sides made their points in a civil way, rallied their base and demonstrated clearly the issues. Sadly, I think both tended to speak past each other. Ken did a solid job presenting the Christian worldview, though more scientific evidence to support that would view would have mad his case stronger. He did clearly show that one can be a creationist and make significant contributions to science. I fear that point may be missed.
Bill Nye was either ill prepared or he really didn’t care to debate the issue. Either way, what came across to me was tolerating something he disdained to push a naturalistic viewpoint. Did he argue well? Yes, and I’d submit in terms of performance he edged out Ken. However, it came across clearly that he had no concept of the worldview Ken was coming from. A reasonable man would seek to understand and then be understood. Bill operated from a caricature of a creationist not from an understanding of a creationist worldview.
Bill and Ken were even on: failing to prove their thesis, being civil and rallying their base. Nye edged out and beat Ken on performance. In terms of being prepared, Ken was clearly more ready. Over all, I think Ken won the debate as he did show the viability of creationism, though he failed to prove his thesis. I think Ken over reached with his thesis.
The reasonable man
A reasonable man is one who uses analytical thought and understands a system before critiquing it. Bill failed in this. He clearly did not have any understanding of the Bible from Ken’s perspective. His case could be more clear had he more knowledge. A reasonable man would be more attentive to his question being raised. Frequently, Bill stated that if one could offer one proof it would change the world. Ken’s evidence of the tree encased in basalt was blown off. Ken’s rebuttal answered Bill’s question, but was ignored.
Evidence’s chances of changing Bill’s viewpoint was small at best. Given his lack of preparedness, I don’t think Bill much cared. While he did conduct himself in a civil manner, he blew off two major points Ken was making: 1) the viability of creationists 2) historical vs observational science. Bill obviously disagreed, but his point came across as trite and pigeon holed creationists as anti-science. Ken’s case clearly demonstrated the opposite. I agree Ken should have offered more scientific evidence, but I also don’t think it would matter.
This debate demonstrated a key point of belief for me: It’s Jesus first, then creation. I am a creationist because of Jesus. Theologically, that is true of all creationists. I’ll write on that later. A key point that is this: How do you scientifically prove a supernatural creation? Is there any proof of that? Yes, his name is Jesus. The feeding of 5,000 plus and 4,000 plus demonstrates instant control over creation & matter. It was observed, recorded and in an environment that was antagonistic to Jesus. (The crowds loved the food, but also yelled crucify him later.) There is no way to pull off those feedings as a con. Also, Jesus rose from the dead as he said he would and when he said he would. This is a recent, verifiable and proven occurrence.
Given the authenticity of Jesus, the probability that Genesis 1-11 is correct carries weight. Jesus took those accounts as literal, and given his assertions as being one with the father, he was there. It is more reasonable to trust Genesis because of Jesus than evolution with billions of years and chance. While I’ve met people who came to Jesus because of a reasoned explanation of creationism, the main thing is Jesus. The biggest weakness of creationism is they don’t focus on Jesus enough when he is verifiably the best evidence that creationism is true.
Worldview is an issue
The debate demonstrated the need for Jesus. It is important for Christians to give a reasoned defense of Scripture and to treat the Bible as a legitimate source. Ken did that very well. At the same time, we must realize we are speaking a different ‘language’ than those who are not in Christ. The Gospel will and does come across as foolishness. This is where I think Ken was more prepared than Bill. Ken understood Bill’s worldview, but Bill did not understand Ken’s. Had Bill taken the time to understand Ken’s worldview, he could have made is point better. Whether from arrogance, disdain or plain lack of being prepared I do not know, but Bill failed at a key point. For Christians, it should demonstrate that a reasoned case for something is not enough. We don’t save anyone, only God does.
Creationism is viable
Ken answered the question that creationism is viable. He gave clear examples of creationists contributing positively to science and engineering- something Bill is pleading for. Ken and Bill agree there is a need for children to pursue science and engineering. That Bill did not make this point is sad. Ken demonstrated the reasonableness of creationism based on a Christian worldview, that creationists have and are contributing positively to science and that there are significant issues with evolution. While Bill made a case and argued well, he did not show that creationism isn’t viable. His lack of understanding a Christian worldview greatly undercut his point.
The bottom line:
First, seeks to understand and then be understood is a key rule of thumb when entering a debate. Second, you cannot argue people into heaven, but we should have a clear and reasonable defense for the hope that is within us. Third, evidence rarely matters when the issue is worldview. Finally, seek to make a difference and not a point. Even if you win the debate that evolution is wrong, if one doesn’t accept the message we received, the debate doesn’t matter. Jesus died and rose again on the third day. The key to passing on that message is a submissive spirit that does good works (1 Peter).
Our job isn’t to reach America, it’s to reach americans. ~Rick Warren
On January 6th I wrote a blog piece on the need for civility: https://twoznek.com/2011/01/06/a-return-to-civility/ . It is my desire for my boyz to live in a world were ideas are discussed with proper respect and not vitriol. Given the shootings that occurred in Tuscon, AZ soon after the blog post I wrote this: https://twoznek.com/2011/01/11/civility-civility-where-art-thou/ . Civility isn’t easy. I appreciated the way President Obama put it when addressing those hurting in AZ:
“We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations.”
~ President Obama.
Failing the Tea Party and the Unions
Statements by public officials and other leaders regarding the Tea Party are the furthest from the concept of what civil discourse is. Note: I am not defending, promoting the Tea Party, nor am I criticizing them in this post. The vitriol within statements regarding the Tea Party pales in comparison of the rhetoric that was scolded soon after the Tuscon shooting. The rhetoric against the Tea Party is bigoted, caustic and beneath contempt for those holding office. It serves no greater purpose than feed hostilities. For those making such statements to promote or protect unions, it ultimately fails for it gives up the high ground
We see the lack of civility in both parties. President Obama wisely stated “If [the Tuscon shooting] tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.” Sadly we are currently failing in the area of civility. This isn’t a right vs left problem, it is a lack of discernment and wisdom by all of us. We the people are the problem.
The bottom line:
We need to catch our breath n the marathon that is civility. It is time for our leaders to reflect on the rhetoric they are using. They should exemplify civility. We the people should be careful with what we desire. Civility doesn’t mean being emotionless. It does mean we should accord even those we cannot stand proper respect whether deserved or not.