Who Made the Moon?: A Father Explores How Faith & Science Agree
This should be required reading for pretty much every Christian parent… seriously. The author, Sigmund Brouwer, honestly struggles with cosmology systems, anthropic principles, the history of those in power marginalizing those who are not (in earlier centuries: the Church; today: the scientific establishment), and gracefully & thoughtfully dealing with reconciling faith & science.
My guess is that some people will be highly offended by things he has to say, even though he is extraordinarily gracious in his approach. The list of people who might be offended include:
- those who believe science is in opposition to Christianity
- those who subscribe to “young earth” creationism
- those who find Dawkins & Harris compelling instead of irritating
- those who are afraid anything less than total repudiation of evolution is shaking hands with the Devil
I still remember my dad sitting with me on a rock on the edge of the Grand Canyon as we looked at the geological history laid bare in the layers of rock. He looked at me & said, “God spent two chapters in His book talking about how He made the earth. He spent a lot more time talking about how much He loves us, enough to send Jesus to die for us. Which do you think He wants us to concentrate on?” It’s this kind of attitude that Brouwer encourages in this very well written book.
Even as I write this, I realize that some will assume that Brouwer is advocating that Christians roll over & play dead… become the lap dog of science. Far from it! He suggests that we learn more about science – and in the process, see our faith affirmed by truth, scientific or otherwise.
...and now the links about this week's "debate" between Ken Ham & Bill Nye. (There is, of course, a "ham on nye with a side of cole slaw" joke just sitting right there.)
Important note: not really interested in debating the details of young/old earth theories... at all.
Important note: not really interested in debating the details of young/old earth theories... at all.
As one might expect, religious Americans heavily favor creationism 67% to 27%. Irreligious Americans are the opposite, favoring evolution 64% to 25% (and I'd love to know the irreligious people who believe in special creation!). While this breakdown of the numbers might not be surprising, it does show that one's view of the our origin is strongly tied to one's view of God.Greg Atkinson - Ken Ham, The Bible, and the Creation Vs. Evolution Debate
Let me share my own view of Creation first: I agree with pastors and authors like Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler when it comes to Creation. I do not believe in the theory of evolution. I believe “God created the heavens and the earth” – and life for that matter. However, like Driscoll and Chandler, I don’t get caught up in “new earth” or “old earth” debates.
Casey Luskin - The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity
People will walk away from this debate thinking, "Ken Ham has the Bible, Bill Nye has scientific evidence." Some Christians will be satisfied by that. Other Christians (like me) who don't feel that accepting the Bible requires you to believe in a young earth will feel that their views weren't represented. And because Ham failed (whether due to time constraints, an inflexible debate strategy, lack of knowledge, inadequate debate skills, or a fundamentally weak position) to offer evidence rebutting many of Nye's arguments for an old earth, young earth creationist Christians with doubts will probably feel even more doubtful. Most notably, however, skeptics won't budge an inch. Why? Because Ham's main argument was "Because the Bible says so," and skeptics don't take the Bible as an authority. They want to see evidence.
I found the whole debate thing a bit baffling to be honest. I've only watched snippets and I must admit I found Ham cringeworthy, though Nye's insistence that intellectual honesty must require one to junk Faith entire is equally ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic when you think Monsignor Lemaitre was attacked in the 1930s for advocating his hypothesis of the primeval atom (which later became known as the Big Bang Theory) for trying to shoehorn Faith into Science.
Pesky fellows those turbulent priests.