Bill Nye vs Ken Ham: Witnessing a Train Wreck

I’ve come to find that winning a debate isn’t so much about who’s more “right” but rather who has better rhetoric. Last night during the debate, I think it was pretty clear that, although Ham had a couple good points, he was neither more “right” nor did he have better rhetoric.

Though he did make a valiant effort to win by creating some “alternate reality” in which natural law, empirical scientific evidence, and reasonable logic don’t exist…

I question when exactly Christians are going to learn that we cannot use logical reasoning to prove our faith; hence, the use of the word, “faith.”

I’ll say it since it seems no one else will:

What we believe is illogical. Call me blasphemous, but take a step back for a second and think about the sheer, utter, ridiculousness of our basic/foundational ideology:

  1. The virgin birth.
  2. Jesus being both fully God and fully human.
  3. Jesus living a perfect life.
  4. Jesus rising from the dead, after being crucified.
  5. Jesus floating/ascending up to heaven after rising from the dead.
  6. Jesus returning on a white horse, with a sword in his mouth, and apparently a tattoo of his name on his leg (or thigh?) #BadAssJesus
  7. And finally, believing that one day, we’re also going to rise from the dead in bodily form (many don’t know this is what the Christian bible teaches, instead they’ve bought into more of a Gnostic sounding view of the resurrection).

(Sidenote: research through the NSYR lead by Christian Smith and Melinda Denton present in their book Soul Searching, that most young Christians are not able to articulate what they believe in. Insinuating they don’t even know the basic message of the Gospel).

If your knee jerk reaction is to become defensive and pull out your apologetics, or learned system of defense, in which your youth pastor indoctrinated you with (which in this case might have been me, but uh, that’s a post for another time), then you’ve missed the point. Here’s a fun painful example, of what that looks like:

You’re not going to argue someone into believing this stuff, all the while your refusal to admit that your set of beliefs as a Christian are illogical is not helping, its only frustrating. It’s leaving nonChristians such as Mark Joseph Stern, of Slate.com saying things like:

“The maddening aspect of creationism is not just that it’s ridiculous, but that it insists it’s a perfectly logical, empirically verifiable scientific explanation of the universe.”

There has to come a point of humility in which one must admit that what they believe and buy into is a little bit weird.

To argue against scientific empirical evidence with a rebuttal of “Because the bible tells me so,” is insufficient (which is why I wrote this). To make a bold statement claiming that 4,000 years or so ago natural law just changed without any empirical evidence documenting this change, and you believe that simply “because the bible tells you so,” is also insufficient. It’s presenting a baseless fallacy, a conclusion with no reasoning, and a judgment with little facts…

Ignoring the empirical research and data provided in regards to evolution, that seemingly refute this idea of Creationism is annoying, and at worst it is deterring many away from Jesus.

“If I were an outsider, I would correctly assume that following Jesus means I must check my brains at the door in regards to science, and that I would need to become politically conservative… in which case, signing onto the Jesus movement would become a “thanks, but no thanks” situation.” – Benjamin Corey 

I never see Jesus saying, that in order for us to show others that God loves them you must do so through argumentative rhetoric (i.e. apologetics). I see Jesus giving us a new commandment exerting us to love one another and saying… “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” This is why I think and believe one of the most dangerous things we can do with our lives, in our context, is blindly buy into an ideology we know very little to nothing about.

It’s the question as to whether or not we want to be right or if we want to be loving.

Right now the single cause of atheism is not because we’re so “illogical,” but because we’re so hypocritical. As Brennan Manning puts it so well, “we’ve acknowledged Jesus with our lips but yet we’ve denied Him by our lifestyle.”

We’ve done so much harm to others justifying it through our inane logic of, “because the bible told me so,” creating laws exasperating the inequality, and oppression of people based off of arbitrary factors.

What if instead of pouring $100 million into the re-creation of Noah’s ark we focus on the malnutrition of the poor (not just making this up, Ken Ham is trying to make this an actuality)? Unless there’s a big ass flood coming again, this is a definite waste of time and money (in Christian/evangelical terms, it “lacks good stewardship”).

Sidenote: Imagine what a $100 million could do for those impoverished, hungry, and malnourished… (Shoot maybe I’ll make a kickstarter, but seriously… who’s with me?)

In my opinion the best way to give sufficient evidence of Christianity is NOT through a “logical rhetoric” but rather through the power and love of God lived out daily i.e. serving the poor, seeking justice, promoting equality, living out a gospel that is inclusive as opposed to exclusive, oppressive, and/or uninformed. 

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D.J. H.

    Excellent. Thanks.

  • http://www.www.patheos.com/blogs/andygill/ Andy Gill

    Thanks DJ :)

  • Bibliophile

    Brilliant use of reasoning. How brave of you to admit that it is in fact illogical and therefore faith based. It’s like a breath of fresh air. And you may be onto something with that kickstarter of yours.

  • http://www.www.patheos.com/blogs/andygill/ Andy Gill

    thanks so much! haha – I’m not even kidding, I think I’m gonna film the video for the kickstarted tomorrow

  • Lynne Childress

    I am in.

  • Julie Anne

    I’m with you! Complete waste of time/resources and I do not believe that anyone was compelled to jump over to the other side of the fence.

  • http://www.www.patheos.com/blogs/andygill/ Andy Gill

    much agreed! Thanks Julie!

  • Emily Hoffman

    I mean, power to you with the loving people instead of arguing thing. That definitely needs to happen. But I still don’t know what people who have attended a science class and are convinced that there’s physical evidence to throw shade on a literal interpretation of the Genesis story are supposed to do about those doubts. Just check them at the door? Decide that God put physical evidence on the earth to intentionally confuse humans/lead them astray?

  • aftertherisotto

    I really love your article; As an atheist I do NOT take issue with the concept of religion, I take issue with the hypocrisy and abandonment of logic, true compassion for your brothers, etc. that I often see in people who are religious. I grew up in Catholic schools and it was my understanding that the MAIN beauty and importance of faith is that it CAN’T be proven or defined by logic. Why WOULD you detract from that beauty by defending it with logic?? You are so refreshing. I also would contribute to that Kickstarter – do it!!

  • shandtmorris

    The time farm of creation is what was in question. Bill was saying it had to have been millions of years. Something that cannot be proven.

  • Justin

    The problem here is that Ham is gnostic. I find that very ironic given his favorite argument is “you weren’t there so you don’t know.”

  • Ian

    While I agree with some of what you said, not necessarily how you said it, there is a call in 1 Peter. 3:15 to be prepared to defend the reason you believe. “15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” So doing away with apologetics as you seem to be suggesting, and please straighten me out if I have misunderstood this point, is not the right answer. Gentleness and Love is required of us, but so is defense. While some parts of our belief in the Bible and GOD is defensible logically, some (and indeed the most important parts) require faith.

  • John Lembo

    Love and Grace and Justice are the best defense.

  • trichardgiesel

    I agree so much! The whole time the debate was in last night I was thinking of 1 Corinthians 1:20-23 “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles”

  • tedfull

    Dude, remember that we’re all the body of Christ, some are the mouth. Faith that’s uninformed is on a weak foundation. We need intellectual and loving believers! Without the knowledge, wisdom, love, etc. how can we move our feet into action?

  • Jack

    Agnostic Atheist here. One comment about the statement in your post:

    “Right now the single cause of atheism is not because we’re so “illogical,” but
    because we’re so hypocritical. As Brennan Manning puts it so well, “we’ve acknowledged Jesus with our lips but yet we’ve denied Him by our lifestyle.” ”

    Along with many others I have known, I deconverted from Christianity not because I find Christians hypocrites – Most everyone is a hypocrite at some level, myself included. The primary (but not only) reason I left the faith is because I found the Bible to simply be untrue. A few the reasons I find the Bible untrue and not a good source of information to base my life on includes the fact that:

    It contradicts Science (as illustrated the Ham/Nye debate),
    It contradicts History (no evidence of Jews in Egypt during Exodus…)
    it contradicts Morality (Slavery is good, Misogyny is good, Anti-Gay is good…)
    It contradicts itself (just google bible contradictions)

    Some Atheists certainly do walk away from Christianity because they find other Christians hypocritical, but there also a myriad of other reasons as to why atheists leave the faith. Something to think about…

  • Jordan Kirk

    Have you ever read the bible or did you just google it? I’d be surprised if you did. If you were to talk to somebody who could explain it to you, then read it yourself, you’ll find out that it is a lot less contradictory than you think. Something to think about…. Don’t blindly accept other peoples opinions of the Bible, and don’t take a verse without understanding the context, and the whole bibles opinion on it.
    Now that’s faith as well

  • Nikolas Cook

    I’m sorry. But I have a couple counter-points: I believe that there IS record of the Jews in Egypt at the time of the exodus. Also: who’s morality does it contradict? Modern? Why is modern morality any better than medieval morality? And if it is modern, which version? In just about any case where there is no divine being, morality is arbitrary and cannot be used as an argument.

  • JasonDhalle

    Everything I wrote today about Bill Nye(Evolution) vs. Ken Ham(Creationism). My opening is borrowed from Neil deGasse Tyson. I should say that I wrote this from a position of opposing Creationism being taught in public schools because essentially that is what Ken Ham wants. Creationism to be accepted as a viable model to be taught in science classes. That’s what private schools, churches, Sunday school and your home is for.

    “And that’s the problem with Creationism. When you reach your limits of understanding the answer is God. It stops progress.

    Ptolemy had a theory about the planets, but when he reached his limits he left the rest to Zeus.

    Then Newton came along and corrected and added to Ptolemy’s theories. When he reached his limits of understanding, he left the rest to God.

    Then Simon-Pierre de Laplace came along and advanced Newton’s ideas and theories with mathematics but when he could go no further his answer was God. Our documented history shows that God and religion stunts progress and that Creationism has no business in schools. You can be a scientist and believe in God but essentially God is just infinite regression. Any scientific discovery made just has God to explain it. The Big Bang? God did it. That’s Pseudoscience and infinite regression.

    Imagine a village with people and crops and livestock and imagine a storm and a flood in the village that tragically kills some people and kills the livestock and that they have to rebuild. Imagine that they get together and figure out ways to prevent the loss of people and livestock and that one of those ideas was putting them onto flotation devices like wooden boats. Imagine that story told in a time when God was the only explanation. You can easily see the difference in a story like that being told today and a story like that being told 4000 years ago.

    4000 years ago it would be pretty simple. God was angry at us for sinning so God made a great storm and flood and killed everything but in his mercy he let some of us live and rebuild.

    There is nothing fact based about the bible. It’s all speculation based on stories developed through a game of whisper down the line written in times when God was the only answer. The observational science of the time was “I have no idea. It must have been God”.

    Today we know about pressure gradient force, atmospheric pressure, gravity, latent heat of condensation, converging winds and wind shears. We know about hurricanes and what happens to the atmosphere to make hurricanes and the resulting flooding that happens. We know these things because we have observed them, studied them, researched them and they are laws of nature without contention.

    The modern biblical pseudoscience answer is that God created the laws of nature to make hurricanes happen. Which brings us back to the infinite regression and the lack of any real evidence which defines pseudoscience. It’s just God, nothing more.

    Ken Ham is Ptolemy and Newton and Simon-Pierre de Laplace. When he reaches his limitations of understanding he picks up the bible and says “Hey Mr. Nye, I know a book with the answers to those questions. It’s called the bible”. Ken Ham who is otherwise a really intelligent person, has stunted his scientific knowledge and progress with religion and God. He said it himself “Nothing would change my mind”. Bill Nye on the other hand begged for one piece of physical evidence that isn’t “because muh bible says so” and said if you can do that you could change the world. He is open to it. He welcomes it. That’s science.

    Its ok to believe in God and Creationism. I know many people that do and I like them very much. You can do that. You can like and be friends with people you disagree with on these things. You can have numerous other things in common with them. That doesn’t mean Creationism is science and that it should be taught in schools.”

  • JasonDhalle

    Everything I wrote today about Bill Nye(Evolution) vs. Ken Ham(Creationism). My opening is borrowed from Neil deGasse Tyson. I should say that I wrote this from a position of opposing Creationism being taught in public schools because essentially that is what Ken Ham wants. Creationism to be accepted as a viable model to be taught in science classes. That’s what private schools, churches, Sunday school and your home is for.

    “And that’s the problem with Creationism. When you reach your limits of understanding the answer is God. It stops progress.

    Ptolemy had a theory about the planets, but when he reached his limits he left the rest to Zeus.

    Then Newton came along and corrected and added to Ptolemy’s theories. When he reached his limits of understanding, he left the rest to God.

    Then Simon-Pierre de Laplace came along and advanced Newton’s ideas and theories with mathematics but when he could go no further his answer was God. Our documented history shows that God and religion stunts progress and that Creationism has no business in schools. You can be a scientist and believe in God but essentially God is just infinite regression. Any scientific discovery made just has God to explain it. The Big Bang? God did it. That’s Pseudoscience and infinite regression.

    Imagine a village with people and crops and livestock and imagine a storm and a flood in the village that tragically kills some people and kills the livestock and that they have to rebuild. Imagine that they get together and figure out ways to prevent the loss of people and livestock and that one of those ideas was putting them onto flotation devices like wooden boats. Imagine that story told in a time when God was the only explanation. You can easily see the difference in a story like that being told today and a story like that being told 4000 years ago.

    4000 years ago it would be pretty simple. God was angry at us for sinning so God made a great storm and flood and killed everything but in his mercy he let some of us live and rebuild.

    There is nothing fact based about the bible. It’s all speculation based on stories developed through a game of whisper down the line written in times when God was the only answer. The observational science of the time was “I have no idea. It must have been God”.

    Today we know about pressure gradient force, atmospheric pressure, gravity, latent heat of condensation, converging winds and wind shears. We know about hurricanes and what happens to the atmosphere to make hurricanes and the resulting flooding that happens. We know these things because we have observed them, studied them, researched them and they are laws of nature without contention.

    The modern biblical pseudoscience answer is that God created the laws of nature to make hurricanes happen. Which brings us back to the infinite regression and the lack of any real evidence which defines pseudoscience. It’s just God, nothing more.

    Ken Ham is Ptolemy and Newton and Simon-Pierre de Laplace. When he reaches his limitations of understanding he picks up the bible and says “Hey Mr. Nye, I know a book with the answers to those questions. It’s called the bible”. Ken Ham who is otherwise a really intelligent person, has stunted his scientific knowledge and progress with religion and God. He said it himself “Nothing would change my mind”. Bill Nye on the other hand begged for one piece of physical evidence that isn’t “because muh bible says so” and said if you can do that you could change the world. He is open to it. He welcomes it. That’s science.

    Its ok to believe in God and Creationism. I know many people that do and I like them very much. You can do that. You can like and be friends with people you disagree with on these things. You can have numerous other things in common with them. That doesn’t mean Creationism is science and that it should be taught in schools.”

  • Taylor Burns

    It seems the YouTube video in the article was removed. Anyone know what it was of?

  • http://www.www.patheos.com/blogs/andygill/ Andy Gill

    Just saw that it was removed, bummer. But it was a Christian girl giving her rebuttal to Bill Nye’s response. It was entertaining but embarrassing to say the least, which is why i think she removed it…

  • Taylor Burns

    Now I’m really curious.

  • Taylor Burns

    It seems the YouTube video in the article was removed. Anyone know what it was of?

  • http://www.www.patheos.com/blogs/andygill/ Andy Gill

    Just saw that it was removed, bummer. But it was a Christian girl giving her rebuttal to Bill Nye’s response. It was entertaining but embarrassing to say the least, which is why i think she removed it…

  • Taylor Burns

    Now I’m really curious.

  • Kyle

    I’m not going against what your article says, at least not entirely in my mind. I would like to ask you a question.
    Do you think that Quantum Mechanics can confirm the existence of a creator or maybe a universal consciousness?

  • Kyle

    I’m not going against what your article says, at least not entirely in my mind. I would like to ask you a question.
    Do you think that Quantum Mechanics can confirm the existence of a creator or maybe a universal consciousness?

  • Lynne Childress

    I am in.

  • Kevin Cuevas

    The biggest contradiction for the Bible being literally true lies in the first two chapters of the first book Genesis. In the first chapter God makes human beings after he created animals on the 6th day.

    -Gen 1:26 Then
    God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and
    resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all
    animals, domestic and wild,[d] large and small.”

    But then the next chapter directly contradicts this by saying Man was created before animals and woman was created after he got done naming the animals “on the day of Creation” (as opposed to the initial week).

    -Gen 2:18-20 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him.” 19 So
    he took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all
    the birds. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would name
    them; and that is how they all got their names. 20 So the man named all the birds and all the animals; but not one of them was a suitable companion to help him.

    Either one or the other happened. You can’t have it literally both ways.

    Also, what about Lilith? Ben Ham doesn’t actually know the Bible. If Bill Nye wasted his time reading the Bible, he would have discovered Ken Ham is full of it, anyway.

  • http://www.hazelwoodchristian.org/hccym Keith Parker

    Um, really? Those who hold to biblical authority believe that animals and humans were both created on Day 6. This is really pretty elementary and completely logical. I also love how you argued for logic and then threw in Lilith – best humor I’ve read on the Internet for a while.

    By the way, I DO NOT agree with all of Ken Ham’s assertions, so this is not me standing up for him. Just responding to this silly comment.

  • Nikolas Cook

    Another translation reads “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (Genesis 2:19 ESV)

    Read “had formed” meaning they were created BEFORE man.

  • Kevin Cuevas

    The biggest contradiction for the Bible being literally true lies in the first two chapters of the first book Genesis. In the first chapter God makes human beings after he created animals on the 6th day.

    -Gen 1:26 Then
    God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and
    resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all
    animals, domestic and wild,[d] large and small.”

    But then the next chapter directly contradicts this by saying Man was created before animals and woman was created after he got done naming the animals “on the day of Creation” (as opposed to the initial week).

    -Gen 2:18-20 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him.” 19 So
    he took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all
    the birds. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would name
    them; and that is how they all got their names. 20 So the man named all the birds and all the animals; but not one of them was a suitable companion to help him.

    Either one or the other happened. You can’t have it literally both ways.

    Also, what about Lilith? Ben Ham doesn’t actually know the Bible. If Bill Nye wasted his time reading the Bible, he would have discovered Ken Ham is full of it, anyway.

  • http://www.hazelwoodchristian.org/hccym Keith Parker

    Um, really? Those who hold to biblical authority believe that animals and humans were both created on Day 6. This is really pretty elementary and completely logical. I also love how you argued for logic and then threw in Lilith – best humor I’ve read on the Internet for a while.

    By the way, I DO NOT agree with all of Ken Ham’s assertions, so this is not me standing up for him. Just responding to this silly comment.

  • Nikolas Cook

    Another translation reads “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. (Genesis 2:19 ESV)

    Read “had formed” meaning they were created BEFORE man.

  • shandtmorris

    Wow! I cannot believe what I just read. Ken Ham did a fantastic job of negating Bill Nye’s argument of ‘secular scientists” measurement of time -although I did notice that Bill chose to ignore Ken’s comments (that reminded me of Obama ignoring all of Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the interview). Ken’s faith was not the subject of the debate; That was whether or not the earth was young (as Christian scientists believe), or old (as secular scientists believe). Bill gave an example of a large amount of ice forming over ‘millions of years’, and Ken diminished his argument of time (millions of years) by giving an example of a large amount of ice forming over a smaller (and known) time frame. One point that Ken missed was that of the trees at Mt. Saint Helen’s lake. That fact that trees have already begun petrifying after such a short time defies secular argument. Ken’s point that time measurement, from human perspective, has not adequately been proven was well spoken. There are too many varying (and I might add – incorrect) measurement systems. The only one we can be sure of is one we can observe. Too many people say that their time measurement frame is the correct one. Anything-else is FAITH. Bill Nye, in my opinion, was telling me to believe in something that doesn’t make sense – something Obama is telling us to do.

  • Semi Sane Person

    What? Someone who is super-religious and anti-Obama?

    That would never happen.

  • shandtmorris

    I guess it depends on your definition of ‘super-religious’. Anti-Obama, definitely. That man wants to destroy this country while he and Michelle go on vacations with a cost to us (the taxpayer) that could have helped us, immensely – and then blame it on ‘the wealthy’.

    I was taught to think, though, and I think both topics (secular science and Obama) have their flaws.

  • Bruce

    Ken Ham, was spot on! The rest of what you wrote – I”ll reserve my thoughts and expressions on.

  • Bruce

    Ken Ham, was spot on! The rest of what you wrote – I”ll reserve my thoughts and expressions on.

  • thomassj

    i agree with you on many of your points. we do need to love each others or else i we’ll be is a clanging cymbal.

    i do think Ham was very genuine and gentle in his presentation of creationism. it didnt sound like he was arguing for it and/or bashing Nye or any scientist. yes, he did present it and made a defense for it, but the real issue that he was after was that he wanted people to think about what it is they believe. he wanted creationism to be presented to people and kids just as much as the schools push evolution or big bang theories. there is nothing wrong with that. it is good for people to actually think and search themselves, instead of automatically accepting and believing what the public gives them.

    Ham also presented the Gospel on a big platform which is amazing; props for being faithful in that. let’s love others WHILE ALSO telling them the Gospel and defending our faith with scripture, science, reason, helping people see the weaknesses of other religions or cults. etc — whatever the stumbling block for them may be. again, LOVE OTHERS, PRESENT THE GOSPEL, CONTEND FOR THE FAITH!

    our faith isnt defined by logic, but logic confirms our faith. i can see with my own eyes, mind, and heart that there is a creator and His name is JESUS!

  • Semi Sane Person

    If the claim is that we should have our schools presenting Creationism as a valid option for how the universe/our world came into existence, then you best be arguing for the same rights for the views of the non-Judeo-Christian religions that exist too.

    I can’t wait to see a textbook that states that the world was created when Odin slew an Ice Giant (Ymir), creating the mountains and land from its spine and bones and the oceans from its blood.

    See, the thing is, most people (Christians and Athiests, as well as most people who follow that religion even) would understand that while there are stories that tell of the creation being just like this… that it’s simply much more likely that the mountains aren’t made of the spine of an ice giant, nor the oceans made of its blood.

    There’s very little evidence to suggest that for a valid case. There is equally little evidence that suggests there is any validity to the Creationist model. Yet there is tons of evidence that suggests Natural Evolution is a real thing. That the Big Bang happened. That there is a great deal of possibility that somewhere out in the universe, on a planet orbiting some distant star, there is life out there other than us.

    So, no. I don’t think it’s appropriate to have the schools teaching children this. If parents want their children taught this way, then send them to Christian Schools. Leave religion out of schooling, period. It doesn’t belong there. And I’m sorry, but Creationism is just an extension of a religious belief system, not a stand-alone “scientific” model for how we came to be.

  • thomassj

    i agree with you on many of your points. we do need to love each others or else i we’ll be is a clanging cymbal.

    i do think Ham was very genuine and gentle in his presentation of creationism. it didnt sound like he was arguing for it and/or bashing Nye or any scientist. yes, he did present it and made a defense for it, but the real issue that he was after was that he wanted people to think about what it is they believe. he wanted creationism to be presented to people and kids just as much as the schools push evolution or big bang theories. there is nothing wrong with that. it is good for people to actually think and search themselves, instead of automatically accepting and believing what the public gives them.

    Ham also presented the Gospel on a big platform which is amazing; props for being faithful in that. let’s love others WHILE ALSO telling them the Gospel and defending our faith with scripture, science, reason, helping people see the weaknesses of other religions or cults. etc — whatever the stumbling block for them may be. again, LOVE OTHERS, PRESENT THE GOSPEL, CONTEND FOR THE FAITH!

    our faith isnt defined by logic, but logic confirms our faith. i can see with my own eyes, mind, and heart that there is a creator and His name is JESUS!

  • Semi Sane Person

    If the claim is that we should have our schools presenting Creationism as a valid option for how the universe/our world came into existence, then you best be arguing for the same rights for the views of the non-Judeo-Christian religions that exist too.

    I can’t wait to see a textbook that states that the world was created when Odin slew an Ice Giant (Ymir), creating the mountains and land from its spine and bones and the oceans from its blood.

    See, the thing is, most people (Christians and Athiests, as well as most people who follow that religion even) would understand that while there are stories that tell of the creation being just like this… that it’s simply much more likely that the mountains aren’t made of the spine of an ice giant, nor the oceans made of its blood.

    There’s very little evidence to suggest that for a valid case. There is equally little evidence that suggests there is any validity to the Creationist model. Yet there is tons of evidence that suggests Natural Evolution is a real thing. That the Big Bang happened. That there is a great deal of possibility that somewhere out in the universe, on a planet orbiting some distant star, there is life out there other than us.

    So, no. I don’t think it’s appropriate to have the schools teaching children this. If parents want their children taught this way, then send them to Christian Schools. Leave religion out of schooling, period. It doesn’t belong there. And I’m sorry, but Creationism is just an extension of a religious belief system, not a stand-alone “scientific” model for how we came to be.