Recording Of My Drew Marshall Show Appearance

The recording from the episode of the Drew Marshall show that I was on is now available online on the radio show’s website. You can stream it, or download the mp3.

Have a listen and let me know what you think!

As a reminder, it was me and Jonathan Ryan (of the blog Geek Goes Rogue) talking about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.

  • Gary

    Something is messed up with the podcast. “Bill Nye the Science Guy” song, and 60′s style DJ interjections keep repeating, to an annoying level, and no total time and elapsed time markers showing up. Unless this is typical of Canada?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Sorry to hear that. Hope you can listen to the mp3!

      • http://youtube.com/user/BowmanFarm Brian Bowman

        Mp3 worked.

      • Gary

        OK, it works.

  • http://tunabay.com/ Keika

    It would have been a better segment with only you and Marshall chatting away, without Jonathan Ryan, who really added nothing insightful to the conversation about the Ham/Nye debate. Marshall seemed to hang on the fact that Ryan had come up with the witty Ham on Nye epigram, while you provided the only thoughtful and interesting observations about the debate. Thanks for the link!

  • http://youtube.com/user/BowmanFarm Brian Bowman

    So if I agree with the National Weather Service explanation of cold fronts and lows, I’m going to hell because I don’t believe god sends the rain supernaturally. Love your weather analogy, Dr. McGrath. :)

    But Ken Ham thinks he is protecting the salvation magic show, you realize. If humans are just another Great Ape, instead of a divinely special specie, too many question arise that make a mockery of soteriology.

    Did Jesus die for just homo sapiens or for all the Great Apes?[1] Do other species need a specie specific savior dying for them? Are Ceteaceans, possibly more intelligent than humans,[2] smart enough to have never sinned? Would it be troublesome to crucify a starfish on a pentagram?

    Oh, and morality is part of evolution[3,4] too. Leaving Frans de Waal’s book on the coffee table always gets a reaction. ;)

    __________
    1. Kingdom: Animalia • Phylum: Chordata • Class: Mammalia • Order: Primates • Superfamily: Hominoidea (APES) • Family: Hominidae (GREAT APES) • Tribe: Hominini • Genus: Homo • Species: H. sapiens

    2. All mammals from mice to men have three lobes to the brain whereas cetaceans have a fourth lobe. The convolutions on the neo-cortex area of the brain are more pronounced on cetacean brains than on humans. So overall, the brain of a sperm whale and orca are larger, and more complex than human brains. seashepherd.org/whales/the-intelligent-whale.html

    3. Frans de Waal. (1996). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Harvard University Press.

    4. Christopher Boehm. (2012) Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. Basic Books.

  • arcseconds

    I wonder whether it really would have been better if Nye had been more theologically savvy or biblically scholastic.

    I mean, yes, in terms of making mincemeat of Ham it might work. And, you know, I’m always sympathetic to telling the truth.

    But I think maybe anyone even remotely sympathetic to Ham as a fellow-traveller might be more willing to listen to stuff about sediment deposition and radioactive decay if they’re not also being told that Genesis is a mash-up of at least two different origin stories incorporating material known from much older cultures, not dictated to Moses by God, not as old as they think it is, and that most of what they believe about Christianity only can be found in the Bible if you’re already looking for it.

    Perhaps a more useful debate would be Francis Collins versus Ham, with the topic being ‘can you be a Christian and believe in evolution?’ or something like that (Ham kind of admits you can be, but thinks there’s something dreadfully fishy about it).

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Yes, someone with a scholarly view of the Bible would be regarded perhaps even more negatively by Ham and his followers than a secular scientist!

      A discussion between Ham and Collins might bring many important things about Ham’s ideas and stances to light.

      • arcseconds

        Well, Ham’s ardent supporters, while perhaps we might hold out hope that some individuals may be bought to see the light, on the whole we’d have to expect are a bit of a lost cause.

        I’m more worried about people who are on the fence, especially those who feel some compulsion toward the evolutionary story but are afraid to investigate it further because they fear that Christianity will crumble and moral relativism will ensue and people will start murdering puppies for laughs and marrying lawn-furniture.

        I think a great deal of good could be accomplished by informing people about the range of worldviews people actually hold in a sympathetic manner.

        It would be a much nicer place if everyone who’s currently a creationist remained a creationist, but dropped the holier-than-thou Real True Christian (all you other so-called Christians are just a bunch of weak-willed, easily swayed accommodationists) stance, dropped the white-knuckled death-grip on their culturally-bound interpretation of Genesis, and accepted that maybe evolutionary scientists (and, by implication, the scientific community) aren’t a bunch of evil ideologues and easily-manipulated fools.

        It’s kind of apparent that a lot of what’s keeping them there is they take comfort from the total clarity and apparent certainty of their interpretation of the Bible, and greatly fear (and don’t understand) a world without that interpretation.

        From the standpoint of the Enlightenment, of course, that you feel better about living in a world which has been personally created hands-on by a big person in the sky is no proof whatsoever that you are living in such a world, so gives you no justification for believing that at all, so pointing out that moral chaos may ensue is irrelevant.

        But we have to live with the fact that this does seem to be one thing that’s keeping them from being comfortable not just with evolution themselves, but anyone believing in evolution. And I think introducing them to the notion that you can still be a good person (and still lcare for people and enjoy sunsets and even be a Christian) without a ‘literal’ genesis has got more hope of succeeding than teaching them how to be Enlightenmently rational and then showing them that a scary complicated dog-eat-dog godless universe is a more rational belief.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X