The upcoming debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham is being much touted in some quarters. I don't think this debate will prove anything one way or the other. It's a debate between two lessers. Two hacks.
I have listened to a few Ken Ham lectures and the central point I take away from them is this: Do not let your experience dictate your interpretation of Scripture. Rather, interpret experience by the Word of God. Hack or not; those are words of wisdom.
I wish the debate would have others instead but I'm still praying for the Lord to use Ken Ham. I hope it won't become like the debate a few years back with Ray Comfort and the Rational Responders; it was so bad and embarrassing I couldn't bring myself to finishing it.
I'm not particularly impressed with Ken Ham's apologetic, but the best I can tell he's serving The Lord faithfully with such gifts as he has, and at a popular level I think he's been used of The Lord to do much good for the cause of Christ. I hope we can offer him encouragement.
I guess I haven't listened to enough Ken Ham because I've found what I have listened to interesting, especially as he acknowledges people's presuppositions in the creation vs. evolution debate. I'm stoked for his debate with Bill Nye (though Bill is hardly the most qualified, he's been anti-creationism for years). What is it about Ken Ham that makes him a hack?
I'm more excited about the William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll dialogue. Though, some people on the web are calling or describing it as a debate. Including Carroll.
God is not a Good Theory by Sean Carroll. I trust WLC will study Carroll's views. My only concern is that many of Craig's arguments hang on the A-theory of time and Carroll may be able to exploit that.
I guess I have a second concern. Craig often appears to lose dialogues. For example, while Craig won his formal debate with Lawrence Krauss, he didn't do so well in their three dialogues in Australia. Mostly because Craig was too gracious, wasn't as aggressive as he is in debates and allowed Krauss to interrupt him and do most of the speaking. A similar thing happened in Craig's debate with Shelly Kagan and that's why many atheists claim Kagan won the debate.
I have listened to a few Ken Ham lectures and the central point I take away from them is this: Do not let your experience dictate your interpretation of Scripture. Rather, interpret experience by the Word of God. Hack or not; those are words of wisdom.
ReplyDeleteI wish the debate would have others instead but I'm still praying for the Lord to use Ken Ham. I hope it won't become like the debate a few years back with Ray Comfort and the Rational Responders; it was so bad and embarrassing I couldn't bring myself to finishing it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not particularly impressed with Ken Ham's apologetic, but the best I can tell he's serving The Lord faithfully with such gifts as he has, and at a popular level I think he's been used of The Lord to do much good for the cause of Christ. I hope we can offer him encouragement.
ReplyDeleteI guess I haven't listened to enough Ken Ham because I've found what I have listened to interesting, especially as he acknowledges people's presuppositions in the creation vs. evolution debate. I'm stoked for his debate with Bill Nye (though Bill is hardly the most qualified, he's been anti-creationism for years). What is it about Ken Ham that makes him a hack?
ReplyDeleteHe lacks the requisite education to be a serious representative. There are many well-credentialed creationists. He's not one of them.
DeleteAs opposed to Bill Nye who is more or less an engineer?
ReplyDeleteHow is my statement in opposition to Nye, when I said both are hacks?
DeleteFair enough.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm more excited about the William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll dialogue. Though, some people on the web are calling or describing it as a debate. Including Carroll.
ReplyDeleteGod is not a Good Theory by Sean Carroll. I trust WLC will study Carroll's views. My only concern is that many of Craig's arguments hang on the A-theory of time and Carroll may be able to exploit that.
DeleteI guess I have a second concern. Craig often appears to lose dialogues. For example, while Craig won his formal debate with Lawrence Krauss, he didn't do so well in their three dialogues in Australia. Mostly because Craig was too gracious, wasn't as aggressive as he is in debates and allowed Krauss to interrupt him and do most of the speaking. A similar thing happened in Craig's debate with Shelly Kagan and that's why many atheists claim Kagan won the debate.
Delete