http://debatelive.org/
Pastor John
I have difficulty in watching this type of thing but I did listen to the last 45 minutes or so, and it was enough to make me want to hear the rest of it.
For his part, Mr. Nye was at least civil. Very often in this type of thing the pro-evolution side is extremely sarcastic and disdainful – I mean extremely! He kept it under control. For him to put himself in that situation has already, and will continue to bring him some flak from the scientific community.
Ken Ham struggled at times, primarily because the Spirit is entirely left out the picture. The truth about the holy spirit will cause division among Christians, as it should, so he and his ministry avoid the subject. They would say that such matters are irrelevant to believing the Genesis account. It is like a court case where the defendant is not called as a witness by his own side for fear of what might happen under cross-examination. The witness of God is never allowed on the stand and it hurts me to see it. If only they could be happy to let the spirit of God do the cross-examination and rejoice in the results. That is why I have trouble getting involved with these events.
One thing I thought that Ken Ham missed badly was Nye’s bizarre concern for the future of America’s science if Creationism is allowed into the picture. Many great scientists from the age that ushered in the beginnings of our technological era were bible believing Christians who would never have questioned the matter. It did not stop science developing at all. In fact, it may well have been connected to God blessing them with increased understanding. I thought Ham let Nye repeatedly state his opinion on this matter without any rebuttal (at least in the time I was listening.) Nye is portraying belief in God as being incompatible with good scientific endeavor.
I love Ken Ham and still have a soft spot for his ministry. The man has “guts”. The opposition and ridicule he has faced for years, and especially over the building of the Museum (which was just an idea in 2000), would beat down many a man. They were part of what God used in turning me back toward Him back in 1999-2000 when the “Creation Bus” visited the town 50 minutes west of us. Their mission is primarily to Christians who have belief in the Bible. They are not really a disprove evolution to the evolutionists ministry. They correctly point out that a watered down view of Genesis undermines the whole of salvation history given in the Bible. Their seven “C’s” of history: Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, Consummation are OK but they need another, “Conversion”. Nevertheless, they strive to help people hold on to Genesis being literally true and show them that science does not necessarily preclude those things being true. If the debate helps people hold on to simple belief, maybe it will help some find their way to Jesus.
It makes me think on what you said about “we”, the people of God. We are a mess. We have let go the things of God. Psalm 74 came to mind. I long for the day God answers prayers like this one. It is interesting that it references creation as much as it does.
Damien
1 O God, why hast thou cast us off for ever? why doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture?
2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.
3 Lift up thy feet unto the perpetual desolations; even all that the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary.
4 Thine enemies roar in the midst of thy congregations; they set up their ensigns for signs.
5 A man was famous according as he had lifted up axes upon the thick trees.
6 But now they break down the carved work thereof at once with axes and hammers.
7 They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the ground.
8 They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.
9 We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.
10 O God, how long shall the adversary reproach? shall the enemy blaspheme thy name for ever?
11 Why withdrawest thou thy hand, even thy right hand? pluck it out of thy bosom.
12 ś For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.
13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
15 Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood: thou driedst up mighty rivers.
16 The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.
18 ś Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O LORD, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.
19 O deliver not the soul of thy turtledove unto the multitude of the wicked: forget not the congregation of thy poor for ever.
20 Have respect unto the covenant: for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty.
21 O let not the oppressed return ashamed: let the poor and needy praise thy name.
22 Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily.
23 Forget not the voice of thine enemies: the tumult of those that rise up against thee increaseth continually.”
===============
Thanks, Damien.
I loved the feelings I felt when reading Psalm 74. That song is probably more applicable now than when David first sang it. God help us!
I, too, have a hard time watching such things as that debate last night, but once it began, I was glued to it. The impression I had was that Jesus was going to use it to help some of his less courageous people overcome the bullying spirits of this age, vis-a-vis the truth of Creation. It was advertised well, and I am thankful that the truth of Creation was given the exposure it got last night. The major news organizations have to be by-passed in order to put the lies they promote to the test. Last night, that happened to a significant degree.
Mr. Nye was contemptuous and sarcastic, even childishly so at times, but as you say, he kept it somewhat under control. His continual reference to “Ken Ham’s model” as opposed to “those of us on the outside” [that is, outside Ken Ham’s little following] was irritating, especially when he continued saying that after Mr. Ham pointed out that it was a false suggestion. One of the most unexpected elements of the debate for me was how much Mr. Nye resorted to slanderous suggestions instead of focusing on scientific facts. I thought he would come to the debate jam-packed with one observable scientific fact after another. It struck me how few evidences he offered the audience. That made me wonder if those evidences even exist. Why else would he not bring them to the table, resorting so often to childish, though muted, negative innuendo instead.
I also had this thought: Maybe Mr. Nye was not the best representative of the evolutionist position. I found myself wanting to hear more about his evidence for evolution. His best evidence, presented early on and referred to repeatedly, was the total lack (according to him) of certain small fossils mixed in the fossil record with fossils of a larger kind. I appreciated Mr. Nye’s pointing that out. It was thought-provoking.
All in all, I thought the debate could have been much better, on both sides.
Pastor John