or, who would win in a cage fight - Adam or Charles Darwin?
Sometimes my son and I have incredible conversations. They're very satisfying and enlightening, and I love that I get insights into the way he thinks. It's (perhaps not surprisingly) similar to my own way of thinking, but different enough to be interesting and frequently surprising.
So last night we were watching this:
Bill Nye - Ken Ham Debate
(note - you can skip the first 13 minutes [there's a timer counting down]. I am not sure why that's there, but there's no content other than the countdown.)
It's VERY LONG, but worth it. Truly. Do not skip things or you may miss something you'd like.
Now, I love Bill Nye - have for years. The guy is entertaining and informative without being too jokey or preachy. He's like everyone's favorite college professor or high school science teacher. I love that he wears bow ties. I love that he has such an incredible zest for life. One thing I didn't get before I'd watched this video is that he really loves his country, too, and made several impassioned pleas for us to continue our relevance in the scientific community by investing in science and math education. It was awesome.
I hadn't ever known anything about Mr. Ham, but I'm always interested in intelligent people positing their views and being willing to intelligently discuss things. And, as a Christian - a follower of Christ and as a believer in God's word - I like to know what other people think and how they interpret things.
There have been many articles discussing how the debate shaped up and who "won" the debate. My son is a debate guy, and we haven't had a chance to discuss the thing on its technical debate merit. So I won't discuss that here - I really don't care about winning/losing anyway.
But I thought that the discussion was passionate and informed, that the arguments were clear and on topic (for the most part), and that no personal attacks were levied at each other. So I found it successful that way.
A couple of things I noticed, though. Mr. Ham's contention centered around the idea that there is a difference between "observational science" and "historical science". The idea is that there is not necessarily a correlation between what can be observed now versus what actually happened in the past. That God can put processes in place in the beginning that accelerate the way things formed, speeding them up to a degree that the entire universe was formed in seven, 24-hour periods/days. (Although I guess technically it was six, since everything was done by the sixth day). And now we have existing, slowed-down processes that we can observe and test and measure, but they have no bearing at all on what has gone on before.
Mr. Nye's argument seemed centered around the idea that there is no proof that such a model can or could take place. That there are things currently alive that are more than 9,000 years old. That there are ice sheets that represent hundreds of thousands of years of winters and summers. And that there is just no way to reasonably reconcile the fossil and geological and astronomical realities with a model that says the entire universe is only six or seven thousand years old.
Mr. Ham eventually retreated to what I call the wall of faith. That region where one has decided to make one's stand and - in spite of countervailing evidence - just accept that there are things (inconsistencies, illogical and incomprehensible things, contradictions) that one may never understand while alive. And that it's OK.
As a person of faith, I find myself confronted with this wall occasionally. It's honestly not terribly difficult to reconcile most of what I believe with what exists in science. Partially that's because I don't believe that the earth was created out of "whole cloth" - out of nothing. I believe that the earth was organized in such a way as to sustain life. Mr. Ham rejects the idea of intelligent design, which seems to marginalize him and his argument in my book.
Mr. Nye, on the other hand, seemed only too happy to say when he didn't know, and that it was OK not to know. Mr. Ham claimed that the answers were in the book.
Mr. Nye brought up a couple of points that Mr. Ham never really addressed. He said that a narrow interpretation of an ancient text - Mr. Ham's interpretation, in particular - is not really a good basis for founding an understanding of the world. He also said that he found it troubling that the knowledge and insights of other peoples and cultures not influenced by the same story of creation were so easily discounted.
I applaud Mr. Ham's faith, and I never felt that Mr. Nye was belittling him for what he believed. I also applaud Mr. Nye's passion and ability to say he doesn't know.
All in all, a very interesting discussion. Surely there wasn't any way either was going to change his mind in the course of the evening. But it was fascinating and enlightening.
Sometimes my son and I have incredible conversations. They're very satisfying and enlightening, and I love that I get insights into the way he thinks. It's (perhaps not surprisingly) similar to my own way of thinking, but different enough to be interesting and frequently surprising.
So last night we were watching this:
Bill Nye - Ken Ham Debate
(note - you can skip the first 13 minutes [there's a timer counting down]. I am not sure why that's there, but there's no content other than the countdown.)
It's VERY LONG, but worth it. Truly. Do not skip things or you may miss something you'd like.
Now, I love Bill Nye - have for years. The guy is entertaining and informative without being too jokey or preachy. He's like everyone's favorite college professor or high school science teacher. I love that he wears bow ties. I love that he has such an incredible zest for life. One thing I didn't get before I'd watched this video is that he really loves his country, too, and made several impassioned pleas for us to continue our relevance in the scientific community by investing in science and math education. It was awesome.
I hadn't ever known anything about Mr. Ham, but I'm always interested in intelligent people positing their views and being willing to intelligently discuss things. And, as a Christian - a follower of Christ and as a believer in God's word - I like to know what other people think and how they interpret things.
There have been many articles discussing how the debate shaped up and who "won" the debate. My son is a debate guy, and we haven't had a chance to discuss the thing on its technical debate merit. So I won't discuss that here - I really don't care about winning/losing anyway.
But I thought that the discussion was passionate and informed, that the arguments were clear and on topic (for the most part), and that no personal attacks were levied at each other. So I found it successful that way.
A couple of things I noticed, though. Mr. Ham's contention centered around the idea that there is a difference between "observational science" and "historical science". The idea is that there is not necessarily a correlation between what can be observed now versus what actually happened in the past. That God can put processes in place in the beginning that accelerate the way things formed, speeding them up to a degree that the entire universe was formed in seven, 24-hour periods/days. (Although I guess technically it was six, since everything was done by the sixth day). And now we have existing, slowed-down processes that we can observe and test and measure, but they have no bearing at all on what has gone on before.
Mr. Nye's argument seemed centered around the idea that there is no proof that such a model can or could take place. That there are things currently alive that are more than 9,000 years old. That there are ice sheets that represent hundreds of thousands of years of winters and summers. And that there is just no way to reasonably reconcile the fossil and geological and astronomical realities with a model that says the entire universe is only six or seven thousand years old.
Mr. Ham eventually retreated to what I call the wall of faith. That region where one has decided to make one's stand and - in spite of countervailing evidence - just accept that there are things (inconsistencies, illogical and incomprehensible things, contradictions) that one may never understand while alive. And that it's OK.
As a person of faith, I find myself confronted with this wall occasionally. It's honestly not terribly difficult to reconcile most of what I believe with what exists in science. Partially that's because I don't believe that the earth was created out of "whole cloth" - out of nothing. I believe that the earth was organized in such a way as to sustain life. Mr. Ham rejects the idea of intelligent design, which seems to marginalize him and his argument in my book.
Mr. Nye, on the other hand, seemed only too happy to say when he didn't know, and that it was OK not to know. Mr. Ham claimed that the answers were in the book.
Mr. Nye brought up a couple of points that Mr. Ham never really addressed. He said that a narrow interpretation of an ancient text - Mr. Ham's interpretation, in particular - is not really a good basis for founding an understanding of the world. He also said that he found it troubling that the knowledge and insights of other peoples and cultures not influenced by the same story of creation were so easily discounted.
I applaud Mr. Ham's faith, and I never felt that Mr. Nye was belittling him for what he believed. I also applaud Mr. Nye's passion and ability to say he doesn't know.
All in all, a very interesting discussion. Surely there wasn't any way either was going to change his mind in the course of the evening. But it was fascinating and enlightening.
Comments