For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty... that no flesh should glory in His presence.... —that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
I thought the debate went very well. Both parties were courteous, and so was the audience. Bill Nye kept trying to stress that our country needs strong science people, implying or even saying that those that believe in creationism are holding our nation back in this way. He brought up the age of the earth and dating methods that he believes show a very old earth, much older than the few thousand years that Biblical creationists hold to. Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis, countered that age dating methods are not consistent or reliable and gave examples. Ken also stressed the difference between historical science, which tries to look back and tell what happened in the past, and observational science which observes current processes and events and makes inferences from this. I want to watch it again, as I missed the beginning statements, and also want to refresh my memory. Did you watch it?
I did watch it. I thought Ken Ham was the better debater; he came across smoothly, calmly, and confidently, and he never lost his audience. Bill Nye, on the other hand, touched on some relevant points, but only in passing, without bringing out their implications clearly.
I thought it odd, and ever so mildly obnoxious, that both debaters spent as much time as they did on the Flood, when the topic was supposed to be evolution vs. creation, and the Flood is only tangentially related to that. Perhaps it was because this debate was part of an ongoing conversation between the two, and the Flood was topmost on their minds in this part of their conversation.
I am not particularly a creationist, as such, myself—more of a theological evolutionist, if you will. If you happen to be interested, I had written up my thoughts on the topic: Theological Arguments for Evolution. I'd be curious what you thought of the arguments there.
I'm probably going to have to comment a little at a time about the theistic evolution idea, and about my thoughts on Christians having differing views on creation/evolution. My initial thoughts: Formerly, I would immediately start attacking (nicely I hope) the idea that God could have used evolution; and I don't 'think' that He did. But then, I could be wrong. That's the difference in my perspective now; I'm trying to leave things open, in case I might learn something new that changes my thinking. As I read your article about theistic evolution, I had a couple thoughts; and later I read some things that I wanted to share, but they slipped my mind, so I'll have to settle down and put my mind to this again. I haven't had time to focus and do it justice, and that's why I haven't answered yet.
Going back to read your article again to refresh my memory, and then I'll comment some more. By the way, I enjoyed reading it, as it was very well thought out, and it helped me in my continuing realization that the most important thing is our love for God, His word, and each other, rather than 'me being right'. I'll be back. :)
I think it's excellent that you are trying to look at new ideas before attacking them. It's always best to give ideas a fair shake, see how they fit into the whole, and consider the arguments for and against, before making a final judgment. Some ideas do still need to be discarded, and I won't be offended if you decide that theistic evolution is one of them. I'm curious on your further thoughts. :)
8 comments:
Did you watch the debate? What did you think of it?
I thought the debate went very well. Both parties were courteous, and so was the audience.
Bill Nye kept trying to stress that our country needs strong science people, implying or even saying that those that believe in creationism are holding our nation back in this way. He brought up the age of the earth and dating methods that he believes show a very old earth, much older than the few thousand years that Biblical creationists hold to.
Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis, countered that age dating methods are not consistent or reliable and gave examples.
Ken also stressed the difference between historical science, which tries to look back and tell what happened in the past, and observational science which observes current processes and events and makes inferences from this.
I want to watch it again, as I missed the beginning statements, and also want to refresh my memory.
Did you watch it?
I did watch it. I thought Ken Ham was the better debater; he came across smoothly, calmly, and confidently, and he never lost his audience. Bill Nye, on the other hand, touched on some relevant points, but only in passing, without bringing out their implications clearly.
I thought it odd, and ever so mildly obnoxious, that both debaters spent as much time as they did on the Flood, when the topic was supposed to be evolution vs. creation, and the Flood is only tangentially related to that. Perhaps it was because this debate was part of an ongoing conversation between the two, and the Flood was topmost on their minds in this part of their conversation.
I am not particularly a creationist, as such, myself—more of a theological evolutionist, if you will. If you happen to be interested, I had written up my thoughts on the topic: Theological Arguments for Evolution. I'd be curious what you thought of the arguments there.
Hi Anna, I haven't forgotten about your comment. I've been thinking about it and will comment ASAP! :)
Ah good. I had just about figured that I was being too "debate-y", and you didn't want to start a fight. But I look forward to your reply. :)
I'm probably going to have to comment a little at a time about the theistic evolution idea, and about my thoughts on Christians having differing views on creation/evolution.
My initial thoughts: Formerly, I would immediately start attacking (nicely I hope) the idea that God could have used evolution; and I don't 'think' that He did. But then, I could be wrong. That's the difference in my perspective now; I'm trying to leave things open, in case I might learn something new that changes my thinking.
As I read your article about theistic evolution, I had a couple thoughts; and later I read some things that I wanted to share, but they slipped my mind, so I'll have to settle down and put my mind to this again. I haven't had time to focus and do it justice, and that's why I haven't answered yet.
Going back to read your article again to refresh my memory, and then I'll comment some more. By the way, I enjoyed reading it, as it was very well thought out, and it helped me in my continuing realization that the most important thing is our love for God, His word, and each other, rather than 'me being right'. I'll be back. :)
I think it's excellent that you are trying to look at new ideas before attacking them. It's always best to give ideas a fair shake, see how they fit into the whole, and consider the arguments for and against, before making a final judgment. Some ideas do still need to be discarded, and I won't be offended if you decide that theistic evolution is one of them. I'm curious on your further thoughts. :)
I agree with Francis
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-address-at-inauguration-of-bronze-bust-of-benedict-xvi
Post a Comment