Ham-on-Nye debate pits atheists, creationists - The Washington Post

Another opinion on the Ham/Nye Debate taking place tomorrow,,,

Bill Nye may be “The Science Guy,” but Ken Ham is the “Answers in Genesis” man, and a debate between the two over the origins of life has nonbelievers and Christians wringing their hands.

Nye, host of a beloved television science series, and Ham, president of a creationist apologetics ministry, will meet at the Creation Museum, where Ham is also the president, on Feb. 4. In what some wags are calling “the Ham-on-Nye debate,” they will weigh this question: “Is creation a viable model of origins?”

In truth, both sides answered that question long ago — Nye with Charles Darwin’s work on the origin of species and Ham with the first book of the Bible. Yet many observers — both religious and nonreligious — say the debate is a very bad idea.

[,,,,]
“It is this huge stereotype that all Christians reject science and an event like this reinforces that stereotype,” said Deborah Haarsma, president of the BioLogos Foundation, an organization whose motto is “science and faith in harmony.” ‘’It looks like science versus Christianity and it ignores the people who have accepted the science of evolution and have not let go of their faith.”

Ham-on-Nye debate pits atheists, creationists - The Washington Post

As a Reformed Creationist, I Hope Bill Nye Doesn't Underestimate Ken Ham | David MacMillan

This debate is more than academic for me. I grew up steeped in creationism. I was homeschooled with creationist curriculum, my family took us to creationist conferences, and I was deeply proud that I knew the real story about evolution and the age of the earth. I was taught there was absolutely no way the universe could be explained without creationism. Evolution was a fairy tale based on faith; creation was good science. I was taught that Christianity wasn't consistent without creationism... that all "Bible-believing Christians" rejected evolution and long ages in favor of a six-day creation and a global flood.

My proudest teenage achievement was mowing lawns to earn $1,000 so I could help build the Creation Museum. My donation earned me lifetime free admission, a polo shirt, and my name engraved in the lobby. I wrote back and forth with many prominent creationists and hotly debated origins with anyone who dared argue in favor of evolution. On two occasions I even wrote featured articles for the Answers In Genesis website... a high honor for Teenage Me.

I'm writing all this because I don't know many people who were as far into the creation science movement as I was and came out of it. After graduating high school, I went on to college and got my Bachelor's degree in physics; I now work in energy regulation. Despite four years of physics, it still took me a long time before I actually came to understand evolution, geology, and cosmology. Now, I'm always learning, always finding out new information, always excited.

Because so much of what I'd been taught was flatly false, I had to re-learn practically everything about biology, geology, and the history of science. I'm amazed by the amount of evidence I systematically ignored or explained away, just because it didn't match creation science.



As a Reformed Creationist, I Hope Bill Nye Doesn't Underestimate Ken Ham | David MacMillan

Bill Nye Explains Why He’s Debating Evolution: Creationism ‘Frightens’ Me | Mediaite

More of the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham "debate",,,

“I don’t think I’m going to win Mr. Ham over any more than Mr. Ham thinks he’s going to win me over,” Nye said this week. “Instead, I want to show people that this belief is still among us. It finds its way onto school boards in the United States.”

He said the push to include creationism in science classes across the country does “frighten” him, calling it a “deep concern.” He added, “If the United States produces a generation of science students who don’t believe in science, that is troublesome.”

Bill Nye Explains Why He’s Debating Evolution: Creationism ‘Frightens’ Me | Mediaite

HamOnNye Pre-Debate Coverage: Interview with Ken Ham

When this debacle (err debate) was first announced earlier in the month, first thing out of my fingers, "Bad move on Nye's part, the legitimacy issue is is why Dawkins will not debate creationists as well: "‘See, I debated a prominent scientist; I must be taken seriously now.’" Hell no!!

Yea well, seems my worst nightmare is coming true,,,

",,,The fact that the world’s media have been reporting on this debate suggests that we have a wonderful opportunity to present the creationist message to people around the globe, most of whom have never heard the case against evolution and the evidence that confirms creation."

",,,I hope my debate with Mr. Nye will create a bigger spotlight on the whole creation vs. evolution debate and to the Word of God and its gospel message. The debate will help point out that there is significant dissent in the scientific community about whether or not molecules-to-man evolution is a true explanation of origins,,,"

",,,What is wrong with presenting people both sides of an issue, and encouraging students to think critically about origins? Secularists have been able to pass legislation that protects the teaching of atheistic evolution (atheism is naturalism) in the public school systems. As I have personally seen time and time again, this has great consequences on the lives of students. If these young people believe they are only animals and that there is no God, then who determines right and wrong? What is the purpose and meaning of life? Surely students have a right to be allowed to think critically about an issue that affects their whole view of life?"

The "problem" as I see it, once the debate is over, the only thing we will be hearing from the Creation Museum, is how the debate took place at all. It legitimizes their view that there is evidence of creation, that creationism is an accepted or acceptable alternative, and it lumps evolutionary theory in with the pogroms of Hitler, Stalin and Lenin to name a few.

HamOnNye Pre-Debate Coverage: Interview with Ken Ham

This is happening: Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ will face Creation Museum founder Ken Ham in debate

Bad move on Nye's part, the legitimacy issue is is why Dawkins will not debate creationists as well: "‘See, I debated a prominent scientist; I must be taken seriously now.’" Hell no!!

In an exciting and somewhat controversial development, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” will debate Creation Museum founder Ken Ham next month.

The topic of the debate will be whether the Bible-based version of Earth’s origins can hold up to scrutiny. The event will take place February 4 at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Ham, the president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, said that he’s excited to debate Nye.

“It’s quite rare these days for such a well-known evolutionist to publicly debate a creationist – so we do expect a lot of media interest,” Ham said on his Facebook page.



This is happening: Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ will face Creation Museum founder Ken Ham in debate

Chris Christie Goes Off Script and Raises Expectations for Romney in Debates

Debates unfair because Obama is a gifted speaker?? WTF,,, I've heard some lame excuses but not being smart is a new one,,,,dude if you cant stand the heat get the hell outta the kitchen,,,

Yet another surrogate of Mitt Romney’s seems to be suffering from message confusion or a personal agenda. The Romney campaign has been busy telling the press how unfair the debates are going to be because Barack Obama is Superman of the Spoken Word whereas poor Mitt Romney has only been practicing every single day for weeks now. They set Romney up as the victim of a President Obama’s unfair skills, hoping to lower the bar for a Romney handicap similar to the one given to Sarah Palin in 2008, when a wink passed for solid debate skills.

Chris Christie Goes Off Script and Raises Expectations for Romney in Debates

Is there a difference between a religion and a cult? - YouTube

Out of the UK an interesting take on a big question,,,

Science and the Bible,,,will they ever reconcile?

Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve

"Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost," Schneider says. "So Christians, I think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings."

"But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you've got a problem," Rana says.

Rana and others believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve for many reasons. One is that the Genesis account makes man unique, created in the image of God — not a descendant of lower primates. Second, it tells a story of how evil came into the world, and it's not a story in which God introduced evil through the process of evolution, but one in which Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit.

"Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.

,,,But if you read the Bible as poetry and allegory as well as history, you can see God's hand in nature — and in evolution.

"There's nothing to be scared of here," Venema says. "There is nothing to be alarmed about. It's actually an opportunity to have an increasingly accurate understanding of the world — and from a Christian perspective, that's an increasingly accurate understanding of how God brought us into existence."

Giberson — who taught physics at Eastern Nazarene College until his views became too uncomfortable in Christian academia — says Protestants who question Adam and Eve are akin to Galileo in the 1600s, who defied Catholic Church doctrine by stating that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. Galileo was condemned by the church, and it took more than three centuries for the Vatican to express regret at its error.

Mohler and others say if other Protestants want to accommodate science, fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if their faith unravels.

Out of all the statements I pulled from this article, the last one by Mohler is the one that has stuck with me the most. I think Mohler fears that individuals who decide they can no long believe in the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story will also reject the "truths of the Bible" as a whole. Without the play book, so to speak, the Church has no power. No means to control the masses!! The doctrine of "original sin" loses an edge, the fear mongering of roasting in hell for all eternity.

Oh Sweet!!

Call me crazy but I love shit like this. There is nothing like a good debate and I love learning. I have one of those jobs that allows me to listen to musics or whatever floats my boat, so listening to pod casts on various subjects fits the bill.

Thank you Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism for making this list available and John W. Loftus Debunking Christianity for directing us heathens to this list.

[Luke also mentions another blog Agnostic Popular Front - Debates. A blog devoted to/about debates about theism, non-theism, creationism, evolutionism, etc. I haven't had time to explore that site yet but am definitely going to dig into it soon.]

Atheist vs theist,,,one man's perspective

Interetsing take on the age ole atheist vs theist debate.

Five questions for Christians

In or out

This article illustrates one of my conundrums with the bible as a whole,,,you can make it say what ever you want it to say. That is if you want to waste the time and energy in the mental gymnastics invovled. Altho I believe that the bible holds no authority in my life, I still find this debate of homosexualiuty in/not in the bible to be stimulating from an academic point of view.

My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality

Some old incomplete works

Back in 2007 I began to seriously consider the issue concerning what the bible said about homosexuality. Below is the beginnings of an essay I started to write but regretfuly never finished. Some time in the near future I may undertake this project once again, but for now I will re-post what I orginally wrote.

Please note that this work is incomplete both in thought and content. For the life of me I can't remember what points 3,4, and 5 were going to be. Enjoy!!

-----

The issues surrounding same-sex relationships are tearing apart our society, individual communities, families and churches. Naturally many people turn to the Bible for guidance, and find themselves mired in interpretative quicksand.

SOME POINTS TO CONSIDER:
1] How can there be such a difference of opinion within the Christian Church over the issue of same-sex behavior? Largely because unproven and socially/culturally/historically biased ideas have been taught for centuries about some Scripture passages.

The six so called "CLOBBER PASSAGES" used by those opposed to same-sex relationships: Genesis 19:1-14 Sodom and Gomorrah (18-20); Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 Holiness/Morality Code (18-20); Romans 1:26-27 Natural vs Unnatural (1-3:20); 1 Corinthians 6:9 (5-6) & 1 Timothy 1:10 (1) Malokois and Arsenokotai.

Other passages used in the same-sex debate, pro and con: Genesis 2:21-25 Creation Story (1-2); Judges 19:22-24 Wickedness of the Men of Gibeah (19-21); 1 Samuel 18:1-4, 20:17-18,41 (20) and 2 Samuel 1:25-26 (1) David & Jonathan; 1 Kings 14:21-24 & 15:9-15 Reign of Rehoboam and Asa-Male Shrine Prostitutes; Matthew 19:1-12 One Flesh; Acts 10:9-20 Purity Issues; Jude 7 Judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah.

While most people are certain they know what the Bible says about same-sex relationships many don't know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They haven't read them, let alone studied them carefully. They don't know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they haven't tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written.

2] HERMENEUTICS
The Bible should always be definitive for a Church’s faith, but the Scripture is open to hermeneutics; "informed and reasoned interpretation". In other words, the Bible is not self-authenticating. It needs to be seen in all the light that every new era of history and scholarship can provide. The process taught at my alma mater was Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981) by Henry A. Virkler:
LEXICAL-SYNTACTICAL METHOD-looks at the words used and the way the words are used.
HISTORICAL/CULTURAL METHOD-the history and culture surrounding the author(s) is important to understand, aid in interpretation.
CONTEXTUAL METHOD-A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
THEOLOGICAL METHOD-A single verse does not a theology make.
LITERARY METHOD(S)-each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it (narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. Within these, there are allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language.)

Points 3,4 and 5 to come, this is a work in progress...

I love a good debate,,,gets me blood a boiling

The other day my girlfriend (yes I am a lesbian) and I were talking about a situation that came about after she "friended" a individual on Facebook. Upon reading her profile and learning she was a lesbian this person began spouting the usual rhetoric concerning homosexuality. There is no one subject (other than the pope and catholicism - maybe) that gets my blood boiling than ignorant religious dogma concerning homosexuality and the alleged condemnation of said peoples in the bible.

Without getting into a deep exegetical or hermeneutical discussion on the subject, consider two very simple points. IMHO the bible cannot condemn homosexuality because:

1] The word homosexual did not appear in any known literature prior to 1869. It is a widely held view that Karl Maria Kerbeny is the first to use the word "homosexual" in a pamphlet arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law;

and,

2] To borrow from H. Havelock Ellis (Studies in Psychology, 1897), "'Homosexual' is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it." More succintly, "homosexual" is a Greek and Latin hybrid; it is a made up word. From the Greek we get homos, meaning same; from the Latin we get sexualis, meaning sexual.