 |
| {the debate video} |
I just watched the Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate ... have to put in my
2-cents, as an advocate for mutually educational dialogs:
Somewhere in the last half-hour of the
“evolution versus creation” debate1,
during the question-and-answer section (past the question "what
would convince you to change your position?", to which Ken
replies, in a word, "nothing" and Bill replies "supportive
observable evidence") the question comes to Bill, "If
evolution claims people are getting smarter, how do you explain acts
of high human intelligence in the past?"
Bill responds by clarifying what is
meant by "evolution," i.e., survival of the "fittest."
He explains that "fittest,"
in that semantic context, does not imply "those who can do the
most push-ups or get the highest scores on standardized tests, but
those who FIT IN {he interlinks his fingers} the best."
This, I think, was the one lesson of
science that Bill fails to implement during the debate ... to
actively help Christians understand how science furthers and affirms
their values (love of the earth, of life, of one another; awe and
respect for all natural creations). When Mr. Ham time-and-again meets
Bill's sound observations with obstinate denial and a LACK of faith
and understanding, Mr. Nye falls into the rhetorical trap of
returning that volley: delicately implying that Christians' literal
interpretations of Biblical historical accounts do not hold up to
robust scientific rigor. Which, of course, is not their modus
operandi; their methods and motives are not scientific and
critical, but poetic and self-affirming.
Were I standing alongside Bill Nye on
that stage, I would have emphasized after EVERY scientific re-framing
of facts and reality that the essential CORE of Christian beliefs –
humanitarian values, love and compassion; stewardship, appreciation
and care for natural creations; faith in purpose, seeing a reason for
life and nurturing/fulfilling that human intent – that those are
affirmed and furthered by science:
* When you love something (a friend, a vocation, a field of
knowledge) you learn about him/her/it so that you can serve it
better, so that you can understand further how it works and how to
help it along its own natural path. In this light, science can be
seen by Christians as an expression of loving curiosity and concerned
question-asking: How do things work? Am I making things worse or
better? How can I grow, in who I am being and what I'm doing, so that
this earth fares better where my hands and feet have touched it?
Had Mr. Nye made this point clear, I
think, a few more of those Kentucky audience members might have gone
home seeing Ken Ham's vision as lopsided – seeing his own
explanations as fully right and final, with no possibility of mistake
or error, while single-mindedly denying the validity of any evidence
or the possibility of any reality that departed from his explanations
– while Bill Nye's positions were open-armed and ready to develop
and grow into an ever-greater understanding of God's {that great and
all-encompassing mystery's} universe.
And, had those audience members
perceived that distinction of characters, then they might have asked
themselves—all said-and-done—who was acting like a kind, loving,
and humble Christian. And the answer might well have been: “The
scientist.”
– Josh Kuntzman
(5 February 2014)
* * * * *
1Official
debate topic-question: “Is creation [of the universe by a sentient
diety, God, as described in Christians' sacred religious text, the
Holy Bible] a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific
era?”
No comments:
Post a Comment