Posted on 02/03/2014 5:12:38 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Bill Nye and Ken Ham will be debating creationism on Feb. 4, and it’s a bad idea for both scientists and Christians. Ham’s young-earth creationism represents the distinct tendency of American Christian fundamentalists to reject science and use their religion to defend economic ideas, environmental degradation and anti-science extremism. But these views aren’t actually inherent in Christianity — they’ve been imposed on the biblical text by politically motivated and theologically inept readers. The solution is not anti-theism but better theological and scientific awareness.
The vast majority of right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are evangelicals, followers of an offshoot of Protestantism. Protestantism is based on the premise that truth about God and his relationship with the world can be discovered by individuals, regardless of their level of education or social status. Because of its roots in a schism motivated by a distrust of religious experts (priests, bishops, the pope), Protestantism today is still highly individualistic. In the United States, Protestantism has been mixed with the similarly individualistic American frontier mythos, fomenting broad anti-intellectualism........
Rights come from God not from government.
Most Ivy League schools were founded by Protestants. Their foundation was to further advance an understanding in Greek, Hebrew, and doctrines of the Bible in all areas of life. It wasn't until the 1920s, when liberalism slipped into the Church that these institutions turned atheistic.
It’s quite a load -— and of course “climate change” comes up again and again.
What does that have to do with debating creationism?
I suspect the author would be surprised to discover the voyages of the Beagle were financed by Protestant movements in a search to accommodate scientific discoveries with Biblical doctrines. The majority of Darwin’s positions from those journeys have been disproved by science itself.
Seriously, the left does make a huge mistake when it debates issues with Christians/conservatives.
They should stick to their standard method of character assassination, namecalling (”anti-science”) and moral dismissal.
The Left has to paint creationists as extreme and evolutionists as mainstream. It's part and parcel of the individual vs the state.
When in truth, the Left's argument cannot hold up under the bright light of debate and facts. Why else refuse to debate?
Those who disagree with the Left are targeted and painted as extreme in order to isolate them and deny them a voice at the table - as "climate deniers" are increasingly denied to be on any forum with climate "scientists" because the issue is "too important" to allow the dangerous practice of letting "deniers" speak (because it "confuses" the public and the issue is too important to give them credibility by appearing side by side with climate change alarmists).
Climate warming, climate change, climate disruption is the religion of socialism - it is taught and preached in many churches (Mother Earth - Creation Care). It's the twisting of science to control. Remember Lysenkosim "....Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives...."
The piece above closes thus:
----------------------------------
"The best way to address the problem is to confront the underlying political and economic concerns that are obscured by religious dogma, rather than attacking the religion directly. Our problems require an entirely new political and economic paradigm, one that rests on understanding and empathetic action between people of all faiths. Religious reformers, concerned environmentalists, scientists and economists must work together toward a more sustainable future. Bill Nye is intensely concerned about climate change and evolution, as are we. He should therefore ally himself with sane religious leaders, rather than debate fundamentalists."
Fundamentalism: a Protestant religious movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of the Bible.
Populist: a believer in or advocate of the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common man.
As we entered the Post Cold War period, we began to use the term fundamentalism to describe segments of the Muslims.
Given the role that William Jennings Bryan played, it has struck me that the electoral maps of presidential candidate Bryan look very similar to the electoral maps of the modern republican party.
How radical. No government regulation? Can this be taxed?
Because of its roots in a schism motivated by a distrust of religious experts (priests, bishops, the pope),Protestantism today is still highly individualistic
Reflected in America, as it was founded upon principled dissent, which was what Christianity began with, yet not as antagonistic toward administration, but not as rendering unwarranted trust or implicit obedience.
I disagree with Ken Ham on most details - I believe in old earth consistent with an interpretation of Genesis but disbelieve macro-evolution. The bottom line though is God did it.
I think the Left is scared to death to have Bill Nye “The Science Guy” (engineer by training) take on anyone with reasonable thinking skills.
What goes around comes around.
In the mid 1970s the noted scholar/atheist Sir Anthony Flew came to NTSU in Denton and consented to debate a “lowly?” preacher/theologian from the Churches of Christ, Dr. Thomas Warren.
Flew appeared somewhat flummoxed by the experience and wondered afterward, why was it that Dr. Warren kept on bringing up Darwinian Evolution and refuting it, when he, Flew, thought the debate would take a different path.
For any who don’t know, many years later Anthony Flew conceded that Warren - and his own further studies and contemplations - had led him to change his mind about the existence of a Higher Power (God). He came to believe there is one.
He held out that he did not trust the Biblical account of that God.
But he did “bow the knee” to His Existence.
The Bible itself says that God is self-evident.
Even the least accomplished among us can SEE that, before they even try to THINK it through.
The first 3 sentences were sufficient to know the writer’s mind is clamped shut. So many examples today of liberals saying what they think their opponents think.
> creationism represents the distinct tendency of American
> Christian fundamentalists to reject science
No bias there.
Evolution is NOT science.
I’m an engineer, and, as such, I find the idea ridicutlous and absurd that, as an engineer friend of mine put it, “the spontaneous auto-organization of random chemicals into complex biopolymers, by chance forming complex self-replicating automatic machines that then evolve into more and more complex self-replicating automatic machines through genetic transcriptional errors and the injection of random noise, filtered into highly coded information and structures by predators, the climate, and other mindless agents working together to produce an ecosystem capable of sustaining and improving all these countless life forms for billions of years.”
Ham is not the ‘right’ guy to debate Nye. Dr. Jason Lisle would be a better fit. Nye agreed to debate Ham for a reason, because he knows he can beat him. Lisle would not let Nye get away with talking points.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_lisle.asp
so, evidently this writer is scared to death that old *science* guy is going to get his ass handed to him in a real debate...
what time/channel is this being aired ???
my bet is that the *fundamentalist*closed-minded* and otherwise *poopie-headed* young Earth arguments will simply destroy the unprovable cult that is todays collectivist *science*...
I believe that the true science that will be revealed by the debate will be *news* to most viewers...
Indeed, I have heard quite a few engineers discuss this as well.
I call it the ‘they are missing some bones so we must be right’ theory.
“.....The agreed-upon debate topic is “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern Scientific Era?”
The debate starts at 6:00 p.m. Central Time, (7:00 p.m. Eastern Time), and you can watch the whole thing live on NBCNews.com and MSNBC.com, or via debatelive.org.
Among those attending the event will be NBC News Digital science editor Alan Boyle, and the religion author and blogger Jana Riess, of Religion News Service. People are definitely interested....”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.