links to read first
the debate is live at
look at his 1st paragraph—-Last night, my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” was held at the Creation Museum. We both presented our cases and defended our positions—I stood on the infallible Word of God, while Nye stood for man’s fallible ideas. But at one point during the debate, Nye made a profound statement. He said, “And I just want to close by reminding everybody what’s at stake here.” Now, Bill Nye and I both realize what’s at stake here—it’s the next generation.—he sees no distant between the Word and his interpretation of it. he stands on his fallible understanding of the Bible not on the Bible itself. but our hope is in the God who wrote the Scriptures, not on what we think it says. he rely on God as disclosed in the Bible to our fallible mistaken minds. KH is far to certain of what is in his head not out there in the world. it is his commitment to a model in his mind without understanding that it is his model, that he built, not God, that is the source of his problems.
the false distinction between historical/origin & observational science.
perfect. csi doesn’t make this distinction, it is unique to ham and his followers. 1st point to nye.
so the family canis evolves in 6k years to see what we have today. creationism’s hyper evolution from the ark idea. -1 point for kh.
what the bible translated into english and interpreted by ken ham and his followers is superior to what we can observe?
this is the big point. it is kh’s interpretation that is at the heart not the words of the bible.
it is a question of authority, who to trust, what is reasonable. bn is focusing in on this. nice.
i think b.nye did a better job. he responded well to k.ham made significant points and came across as a good defender of modern science. k.ham is preaching to the choir, he seems most concerned to buttress the faith of his followers without really coming to grips with the problems of his system of interpretation. frankly, i don’t think he wrestles with the issues but just asserts them. believing that a confession of faith saves, not the character of the God confessed. i don’t think it will change many people’s minds, except that the wisdom of debating YEC’s might be strengthened because nye did do well, without making YEC respectable.
kh asks for an example of new information. there are lots of very compelling mutations. like syncythin, a retroviral protein coopted to place an important role in placental development. or the nylon bug with its frameshift mutation. but on another leel h is right. since living things do form a dual nested hierarchy all genes must have come from antecedents. God has seen fix not to build by moving around debugged biological modules, as any human engineer would be doing.
-=-=-=-next day reading
http://biologos.org/blog/ham-on-nye-our-take **see john walton’s observations
“He opened by undercutting the core of Ken Ham’s claim to authority, emphasizing that Ken Ham bases his claims not on the empirical evidence, but on a very particular reading of Genesis. And that way of reading Genesis is very specific to Ken Ham, not to most of the world’s religious people, or even Ham’s fellow evangelicals. He never stopped emphasizing that Ham’s theology is an outlier, and that he doesn’t speak for religious people, Christians, evangelicals, or even all creationists.
what could k.ham gain by debating a Christian? his main idea is that evolution=atheism Bible=YEC and there is an excluding middle ground with only compromisers & useful idiots inhabiting it. if he debated a compromiser like francis collins he would only be making collins’ ideas more legitimate in the ideas of kh’s followers. no, kh will not debate biologos or other knowledgeable Christians, too risky, no real payoff for him. better to strength the lager mentality of the YEC by debating theologically ignorant people….me to idea that kh would debate a christian on this same topic
the final word from augustine quoted as quoted by–
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
See more at: http://theamericanjesus.net/?p=11515#sthash.aZRXHhaB.dpuf