Reading Time: 2 minutes.
I woke up this morning with a pretty sore neck. Why? Because debates make my neck sore. Back and forth, back and forth no one ever seems to gain any ground. I wonder why that is sometimes? Last night Bill Nye (the Science Guy) debated Kevin Ham (CEO of the Creation Museum). It was an epic battle between two great minds and their thoughts surrounding naturalism/evolution and creationism; theories on how the world, and the universe came into existence. What did I expect to get from watching this three hour long debate? Did I truly believe that either of them really held the exact answer to how it all began? Did I believe that I would, somehow, become enlightened to the point were I could tell the world, I knew without a shadow of a doubt, how long it took to form the earth?
This is what I took from it:
(1) – To wholly believe one of the theories it requires having some level of faith in “observations” to prove your stance.
(2) – Either theory could be valid. Otherwise, we would not be taking the time to have a debate. People do not debate against ideas which do not have the potential of being valid. For example, would you ever argue against the fact that our eyes where created for any other purpose than to see? No, because it would not be worth the time and/or energy trying to convince someone else that they could in fact be used to taste or hear. Therefore, only valid arguments are worth the time and/or enegry it takes to debate. And regardless of your stance on either theory, you have to at the very least find some validity in the other to believe it is worth the time to try and disprove it.
(3) – Experience means a whole lot. If you have never read the Bible or asked God to reveal himself to you, how can you, with certainty, argue against it? In the same manner, if you have not fully explored the theories or naturalism/evolution, how can you confidently argue for creationism? Both require faith, but if you have not deliberately experienced the faith it takes to believe in both, then you have no place trying to discredit the other.
(4) – We have to understand and accept that interpretations will very on all sides. Variation begets faith. From the verification of the numerous scientific ways to uncover the ages of rocks (no pun intended), to the belief there was a great flood. On both sides of the fence, there are different interpretations and continued study towards finding out exactly what unwritten history looked like.
I will leave you with this thought. What was the main purpose behind each man’s reason for debate last night? From my interpretation it was this:
Bill Nye – To make sure America remained the leading country in science, technology, etc., and that local public schools (funded by taxpayer’s dollars) continued to teach naturalism/evolution so that children would develop to think “correctly” using “traditional scientific inquiry.” And to prove that Kevin Ham’s theory was “not valid.”
His journey in life is to try and discover and explain the magical mystery of where, when, why, and how logical thought and the first atom came to into existence.
Kevin Ham – To make sure children had the opportunity to explore and learn more than just the theory of naturalism/evolution. To invite people to try and experience the faith he has in God, the Bible, and creationism. To try and show people that the debate between creationism and naturalism/evolution has been misguided.
His journey in life “on earth” is to share with others the experience of God, and actually discovering the magical mystery of where, when, why, and how logical thought and the first atom came into existence.
For what it is worth, my faith is in God for reasons beyond the various interpretations of Genesis. I am excited to see exactly how it all began after my time is done on Earth. Until then, it is fun to explore, study, and even validate the variations; it grows my faith and my mind.
Great debate! You can watch it here> http://debatelive.org