Posted on 02/07/2014 9:42:01 AM PST by The Looking Spoon
So an apparently epic creation/evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham took place recently. I haven't seen it yet, but it's definitely on my to do list. As a Christian who believes in God I don't reject evolution outright, but I totally reject the evolutionists dismissal of the creation/intelligent design crowd. I believe the creationist views and arguments are just as valid (if not more so) than evolution in that at least the creationist side is honest about the bottom line being that their arguments and beliefs are rooted in faith. Both sides operate on faith, but to me it seems that the evolution side tries to pretend it's not.
So, at this event people were asked to write a message to those on their opposing side and there were some really good ones. I picked out the 5 most powerful arguments for creation and the 5 most ridiculous bits of snark from the evolution side.
Do I have my bias, sure, but it's clear that as a whole one side should definitely be taken more seriously than the other.
Let's see Ham handle that one.
http://creation.com/materialist-defence-of-bible-fails
"Can ‘supernatural’ events occur, or not? Doesn’t science rule out the supernatural? Well, no, it doesn’t. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Laws of science merely describe things that happen, and those things would happen whether scientists have formulated a law about it or not. It is not our scientific laws that cause things to happen the way they do. Similarly, scientific laws cannot prescribe what cannot happen. Our laws of science can no more cause or prevent something than a map can affect the shape of a coastline. ....
Science is limited. It deals with things that can be repeatedly observed and measured. But a miracle, by definition, is a ‘one-off’ sort of event not subject to repetition at will. There are many things, for example historical events, such as Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, which are beyond the scope of science to either prove or disprove. We cannot directly observe or measure things that occurred in the past, so they cannot be scientifically proven. There are other standards of proof—courts of law have various standards of legal proof, and historians have various standards of historical proof, and in these standards eyewitness accounts from credible witnesses carry enormous weight."
That is because the ultimate beginning is something that is a matter of faith on both sides. Personally, I think those of us who are religious are more intellectually honest about that than the other side.
Personally, I'm not a big supporter of the thought of the universe being only 5k years old, though there is no way to prove the entire universe is more than 5 minutes old. Ultimately, I think it's unknowable, and above my pay grade. I wasn't there when the foundations of the Earth was laid.
Seriously?!?
I shared what actually took place! I wasn’t there, and it wasn’t my idea to photograph both sides in such a way.
I do think it was interesting, which is why I shared it, but don’t project what you would’ve wanted to see and then pretend it was there and I simply ignored it.
If you wanted more substance beyond the photographs you are more than welcome to view the debate. After all, I did link to it in this post.
That was from Stein’s documentary “Expelled.” The conversation you’re referencing was near the end with Richard Dawkins.
I saw it in the theater at the time it was out, it is very good, check it out if you can find it.
Some of it. Some not. Don't prented you didn't make a choice.
Me: “I picked out the 5 most powerful arguments for creation...”
I’m not pretending anything, but it seems you need that to be true for your point to hold water...
In answer to the guy’s comment about raping, I maintain that’s the only way the guy in the next picture can get some. Just sayin.
What else did you pick?
The know-it-all-smarter-than-God-himself smirk on that last guy in the photos just says it all, doesn’t it?
Oh yes! I’m glad someone else noticed that too :-)
What else? This post has everything, what else are you looking for?
It’s a HUGE ark housing ALL of the animals of the world. There were only two termites, there’s no way they could get through that ship in 40 years much less 40 days.
Boom!
*mic drop*
:-P
It's easy to confuse actors with scientists these days.
Of course it does, and Ham implicitly recognized this in debate by claiming that secularists had "hijacked" science.
No, "securlarists" did not "hijack" science.
"Secularists" invented natural-science, aka "science", as we know it today, and "secularists" do and will define precisely what the term "science" means -- not Ken Ham.
By law of the United States, Ken Ham is not allowed to define the word "science".
By law, Ken Ham must accept the definition of the word "science" which he (not "secularists") is so desperately hoping to hijack.
Now, PATRIOT1876, in the example you cite, of a miracle, the correct scientific response is not to say: "yes, that is a miracle of God".
Instead, the scientific response is to first describe the events, to the best of verifiable facts, then attempt a natural explanation for whatever might be identified as "natural".
For all the rest, for the "miracle" part, science responds: "we have no explanation".
That's it.
That's what real science does.
Any attempt to mix miracles in with science renders such explanations no longer "science".
Now they fall into some other category, such as theology, religion, faith, etc.
PATRIOT1876: "We cannot directly observe or measure things that occurred in the past, so they cannot be scientifically proven.
There are other standards of proof—courts of law have various standards of legal proof, and historians have various standards of historical proof, and in these standards eyewitness accounts from credible witnesses carry enormous weight."
Doubtless you understand that science itself makes no claims of "laws" or "proof" regarding subjects like evolution, origins of life or of the Universe itself.
There are few-to-no mathematical theorems or repeatable experiments which can be run on such things.
Instead, science there consists of confirmed observations (aka "facts"), testable hypotheses, and/or confirmed theories.
"Descent with modifications" and "natural selection" are confirmed observations, aka "facts".
Evolution of life is a confirmed theory.
Various ideas about natural origins of life are unconfirmed hypotheses, some testable, others not so much.
And that is as close as science ever gets to "truth" in these matters.
Any other ideas, such as suggestions about God's creative powers, are simply not scientific, and will not be included as natural "science" in science texts.
Bottom line: this whole "debate" is simply about understanding where the dividing line is drawn between "science" and "not-science" -- whether "not-science" is theology, philosophy, religion, metaphysics or what-have-you.
As soon as that line is clearly understood, then most of the current "debate" goes away.
Nye has done much work in the field, and has a legitimate claim to be a defender of science.
Unfortunately, in this particular debate, with this particular venue and audience, he did not come properly prepared, and did not present the strongest arguments for them.
Here's the deal: people like Ham and his audience don't care about the specifics of science, evolution or origins.
What they want to know is: how much of science must they reject in order to hold onto their traditional religious beliefs?
Ham went a long way towards reassuring them that they need only reject "historical science" (which allegedly "can't be proved") while they can freely study and work on all other "observational science" without violating any fundamental understandings of scripture.
By stark contrast, scientific-Nye addressed none of their real concerns, and instead on occasion found those "deeply disturbing".
Nye's arguments were addressed to a much more average American audience & students, and as such he found little sympathy amongst Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis followers.
Of course, that's true, but it has nothing to do with science.
Any discussion of God is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Creationist Argument #2: "Why do evolutionists /secularists /humanists /non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a Creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?"
Of course, they don't.
But science, by definition, is non-religious so any scientist is entitled to believe whatever religion they wish.
And there is an obvious difference between God and "aliens", one being certainly supernatural the others presumably natural.
If you are in any way confused about which is which, I'm 100% certain your minister can straighten you out on that.
Creationist Argument #3: "Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith"?
The "big bang" is not a "belief" or "faith", rather, it's accepted as a confirmed scientific theory.
You may remember, years ago there was an alternative, competing theory, Fred Hoyle's "steady-state" hypothesis, which posited a constant, essentially eternal Universe with no beginning or end.
Hoyle's ideas are now generally rejected because of overwhelming, convergent evidence for a "big bang" and finite age of the Universe.
But there is some notion of "steady state" re-emerging in various hypotheses regarding a "multi-verse" -- all of which is today pure speculation, not "belief" or "faith".
Creationist Argument #4: "Relating to the big bang theory... Where did the exploding star come from?"
It was most certainly not an "exploding star".
It may have been some kind of super-duper-massive "black hole", but not a star.
The scientific answer to this question is: we have no evidence, and so we don't know.
Today scientific speculations begin with "string theory" and extend out to "multi-verses", but none of it is seriously confirmed and all is beyond ordinary human comprehension.
Anyone, whether scientific or not, who is half-way religious knows the answer is: God created the "Big Bang", as recorded in Genesis when He said, "let there be light".
Creationist Argument #5: "Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable nor repeatable -- why object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?"
First of all: there is no objection -- constitutional, legal or ethical -- to teaching "creationism" or "intelligent design" in your own Sunday School or home-school.
Those are obvious places where your personal religion can and should be taught to your children.
But Public Schools are not permitted to teach anybody's personal religions, and certainly not to pretend those religious beliefs have something to do with "science".
Second, your "definition" of science is false.
"Natural-science" by definition deals with observable physical evidence, developing confirmable hypotheses & theories.
Among the methods for confirming hypotheses are the making and validating of predictions about what will be found.
On the subject of evolution, confirmed observations (aka "facts") include 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Basic Evolution itself is a confirmed theory -- confirmed by its ability to make valid predictions.
Various scientific ideas about the origins of life and the Universe itself fall into the category of "unconfirmed hypotheses".
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #1: "How can you ignore evolution as a theory if there are entire disciplines dedicated to it?"
The only people ignoring evolution as a scientific theory are people who oppose natural-science for their own religious reasons.
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #2: "What's with all the raping and pillaging, God?"
What this might have to do with "evolution" pro or con, is not obvious.
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #3: "If my great great grandpa rode bareback on a T-Rex... why can't I?"
Presumed point being: if dinosaurs were allegedly around at the time of Noah's Ark 4,000 years ago, how did they disappear without leaving a single recent trace?
Even the old Mammoth-Elephants which did survive that long left remains frozen in ice...
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #4: "How did Noah's Ark stay afloat even with termites on the ark?"
Presumed point being: while Creationists go to great lengths to "disprove" scientific evidence for evolution, they offer no "proof" of their own for such fanciful notions as a very large wooden ark carrying two of every "kind" creature on earth.
Alleged "ridiculous pro-evolution comment" #5: "I require my textbooks to be newer than 4,000 years old."
Presumed point being: by no possible definition is the Bible a textbook of natural-science.
A realization that you've just announced to the world that you can make a good argument for Creationism vs Evolution if you get to pick the arguments for both sides.
Fundamental problem with this thread is obvious.... there is no “powerful” argument for evolution....
The Ark....??? God sustained it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.