[These comments are in response to last nights debate on the viability of Creationism as an explanation of ultimate origins, debatelive.org ]
Did Nye Lie? Was Ham a Sham?
This is the 100th post on the “Pastor’s Corner”! I didn’t plan to write an entry responding to
last night’s debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, but thought I’d at least try
to clarify what seemed to me to be the real issue: the presuppositions that
influence our interpretation of the evidence. Bill Nye seemed to say that only evolutionary
scientists are looking objectively at the evidence and really doing “science.” Creationists are mixing “religion” with impartial
science. The truth is, we all have
core beliefs that guide our interpretation of what we see in the world around
us. Ken Ham admitted that he is
convinced that God exists and that He has revealed himself in the Bible. Bill
Nye wasn’t quite as clear in admitting his core beliefs, but I think it came
through nonetheless: we must explain the universe without reference to the
supernatural, much less to the idea of a “creator.” Is that really objective science? The problem is that view makes human reason the
final arbiter of truth. What if creation
is true? Would not all truth be God’s truth? If I was a debater, or if I had
been able to submit a question, I think it would have been to ask Bill Nye: “If
there really is a Creator God, what would it take for you to believe that He
exists?” I don’t know for sure, but I think he would reject the question as “religious”
and nonsensical and return to his argument based on his view of himself as a “reasonable
man.” The creationist view does offer a
reasonable answer to the questions of ultimate origins based on what claims to
be the Word of the Creator himself. If that record is true, does it make sense
to see what He has said about origins? That sounds reasonable to me. “In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” (Genesis 1:1). What do you think? I would be
happy to hear your comments.
Great post...I think the central argument here for Christians is whether or not we believe we have the power to convince or convict another to Christ. I personally believe, that although I can speak rationally to the subject, ultimately it is the work of God in a person's conversion...which is why there is no perfect rational argument and why even as Jesus lived and did His work here on earth, His own apostles/disciples had trouble believing. If one can have trouble believing a living breathing miracle in the age of Jesus, it would be reasonable to assume it takes God's will to help in conversion today. I am not disregarding that these debates are needed but saying that as we work in partnership with God we should recognize that it is not the mind that is changed. Bill Nye is interested in ending religious belief because he cannot reconcile it and therefore believes it is harmful (probably basing his argument on that it stunts the collective thought growth or basing it on the amount of wrong/sinful things done in the name of God or because his heart cannot handle the question of God versus Nye's need for control). Ultimately, these two subjects aren't juxtaposed but when we debate, we often debate like they are. Instead, these moments should be more about showing honor to the person we debate and allowing for God to direct us in His will for that conversation....because really, there should be no problem with faith and science coexisting. The argument is ultimately more about people coexisting and respecting one another's beliefs. Faith is about the heart, thought is about the mind. It is so important to be in an ongoing conversation with God (praying without ceasing) for His will can be revealed in these moments when we have the opportunity to witness or debate, or both....These are just my thoughts on last night, and they're up for debate themselves. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing! I think you are absolutely correct in saying that we can't argue anyone into believing. Paul was clear about that when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ." I think the point of the debate, which seemed to get lost at times, was to show that Creationism is a viable model for making sense of the universe. My point is that it would have been helpful to try and get Nye to see and admit his anti-supernatural presuppostions. Faith, on the other hand, surely requires a work of the Spirit!
ReplyDeleteI agree. I don't believe it would be easy to change Nye's viewpoint/presuppositions about that but maybe his private reflection will reveal more to him. It definitely would take a work of the Spirit..I sincerely hope that the debate itself encouraged widespread prayer for Nye, for it could be the most prayers ever for him and his life.
ReplyDeleteGreat point! That reminds me of something we've talked about in our Wednesday night devotionals as we have been going through the psalms: In this age our "enemy" is spiritual, not flesh and blood. We are to pray for our neighbors and seek to point them to Jesus. I hope that is the attitude of believers in this case! Thanks again for joining the discussion.
ReplyDelete