We have received numerous comments today on our website YourOriginsMatter and our social media platforms. Here is one of the many #Conversations: Thomas: Maybe Dawkins is right that Nye should not get in this arena. The rate at which the straw man manure flies in is too great to be cleaned up in real time. YOM: We are concerned about this too, particularly since Mr. Nye seems to be fond of falsely portraying creationists as “anti-science.” We aren’t. We have a number of Ph.D. scientists here at ICR, and I don’t even know a creationist who is anti-science. Hopefully, Mr. Nye has been reading some of our literature, and will be more informed on these issues so that he will not misrepresent creationists in tonight’s debate as he has in the past. Thomas: It is amazing that YOM feels the need to put out this spin even BEFORE the debate. YOM: What spin? Can you give an example? Thomas: YOM keeps accusing Nye of not providing evidence for his comments and then makes claim after unsubstantiated claim, like the preposterous idea that science is based on the premise that god created the universe YOM: Rational people are supposed to articulate the reasons for their beliefs. Mr. Nye should really know this, and yet so far hasn’t been able to give a reason for his position. He apparently finds it easier to mischaracterize creationists as “against science” and then proceeds to knock down this straw-man. By the way, apart from the biblical God who provides the rational justification for those things necessary for science, how could science possibly be justified? Take uniformity in nature for instance; this is a precondition for science, and yet no one has been able to come up with a secular justification for it. Can you? Thomas: Nye does not need to provide evidence for what is obvious to scientifically half literate people, and he does not have time to present it to those who have taken the YEC stance on faith and would not listen attentively anyway. YOM: What is obvious to any rational person is that the universe is not an accident. Indeed, God has made it abundantly obvious to everyone such that there is no excuse (Romans 1:18-20). It takes an enormous leap of blind faith to hold that we are merely accidents of nature, and that you are related to a turnip. Rational people have evidence for their beliefs, and are willing to share such evidence with others. It remains to be seen whether Bill can do that. Thomas: We non scientists have to rely on scientists, who OBVIOUSLY, OVERWHELMINGLY virtually UNANIMOUSLY accept evolution. Inside of science the debate was over over a century ago. Creationism is simply RELIGION and NOT SCIENCE. Go to your library and see which section creationist books are in. YOM: I have known many Ph.D. scientists who are creationists. We have several here on staff, such as Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson (Ph.D. in biology from Harvard), and Dr. Jeff Tomkins (also a Ph.D. in biology and expert on Human and chimp DNA) so your statement about belief in evolution being unanimous just isn’t accurate. Perhaps a majority of scientists do believe in evolution, but do they believe it for good reasons? That’s the question you really should ask. There are many examples in history where the majority of scientists were wrong, despite the good evidence to the contrary available even at that time. If you asked a number of evolutionist scientists why they believe in evolution, you might be surprised how many answer, “because most of the other scientists do.” Scientists are people too, and are subject to errors in reasoning, such as the faulty appeal to majority. Thomas: Creationists claim to be scientists only when they think they can twist evidence to their presuppositions but then always fall back on Timothy, Romans, Genesis or what-have-you when they cant. YOM: Can you give an example of this, or is it just an unsubstantiated claim? All scientists, whether creationist or evolutionist, have their underlying presuppositions by which they interpret evidence. We have found, however, that most evolutionists are not aware of their own presuppositions, and have therefore not consciously reflected on whether their own presuppositions are reasonable, rational, and consistent with the methods of science. For example, how would science be possible if there were not laws of nature that are comprehensible by the human mind? And why would there be laws of nature without a law-giver? Can evolutionists answer those questions? #CreationDebate #KenHam #BillNye #HamOnNye #anotherchoice #OrignsMatter
Posted on: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:13:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015