People Who Debate Creation vs. Evolution

Bob Cargill shared the above image on Facebook. It has a point. Ham was untrustworthy on most scientific details he mentioned. Nye was regularly wide of the mark when attempting to deal with the Biblical material (although Ham's treatment of the Bible is no less problematic in many respects).

Who would you want to see have a debate or public discussion, who genuinely knows both sets of material? And how do you think the conversation would go?


"When you say "give to charity" do you mean to secular charities, faith-based charities, or ..."

New Age Translation of the Lord’s ..."
"Believe it or not, according to research, it is the Muslims who give the most ..."

New Age Translation of the Lord’s ..."
"I wouldn't suggest that half the electorate are motivated by racism to vote for Trump. ..."

Review of Just Immigration

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • gordonhudsonnu

    Its not science vs the bible. Its one biblical interpretation vs another biblical interpretation. YEC is bad theology not bad science.

    • Alan Christensen

      It’s both bad theology and bad science–sort of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup of pseudoscience.

  • Matthew Dowling

    Sounds about right! I’m an orange and these “debates” are never helpful or satisfying.

  • ShameonMe

    Kenneth Miller, who is actually a biologist.

  • Rebecca W

    Hugh Ross – old earth creation AND scientist.

  • Beau Quilter

    Speaking as a nonbeliever – I would much prefer that young earth creationists be corrected, debated, and chastised by other believers. But nonbelievers are just as affected by creationist political agendas as liberal believers; and when nonbelievers step into the fray (as I think they must) they simply don’t have a vested interest in arguing for liberal interpretations of scripture; the only thing nonbelievers are concerned with are the creationist interpretations of scripture.

    So if liberal Christians want “good theology” to be part of the conversation, they simply need to step into the debate more often. We nonbelievers will always be a part of the debate, but we can’t be expected to share your agenda.

  • Matthew Funke

    As someone who’s informally studied a lot of both, I’d like to see talks that address half a dozen main points; anyone patient enough to sit through the ordeal with a mind open to evidence-based reasoning would see that the idea of a debate between evolution and creationism is laughable:
    * What we can consider “valid” knowledge
    * Creationism posits X; that sounds reasonable at first glance, but here’s what we’ve found that shows that that isn’t true
    * Creationism claims that evolution can’t be true because evolution claims Y; here’s what evolution *actually* claims, and why that’s different from Y
    * Here’s what evolution claims, and how it’s come to claim those things
    * Here’s the positive evidence that demonstrates that evolution is true, even without a competing model of origins to attempt to unseat first
    * Here’s a history of creationism as a movement, comparison with other ideas Christians have presented over the centuries, and why it’s peculiar that it (a) passes itself off as the traditional understanding of Scripture and (b) manages to hold such sway in American Evangelical Christendom

  • HumanistFox

    I’ll point out the obvious:

    This graph has no data points and isn’t based on any actual evidence whatsoever.

    I can make up graphs, too. It won’t mean anything.

  • ropata

    Francesca Stavrakopoulou vs John Lennox