Evolutionary Debate on ABC in NYC
Actor and former atheist, Kirk Cameron, taking part in a televised debate on the existence of God. Should be interesting. Crosswalk news gives the details:
CNSNews.com reports that two Christian evangelists and two atheist activists are squaring off in a 90-minute debate about whether God really exists - in a program to be shown on the ABC News website Wednesday afternoon. An abbreviated version will be broadcast during the evening edition of "Nightline." "We are very grateful to ABC for taking this courageous step," said Ray Comfort of the "Way of the Master" ministry. The debate was recorded before a live audience in New York City on Saturday. "As far as we know, nothing like this has ever been done before." Comfort claims he can prove the existence of God, scientifically, without mentioning faith or the Bible. Comfort's partner in ministry, actor Kirk Cameron, said, "We will not only prove that God exists, but as an ex-atheist, I'll show that the issue keeping so many people from believing in God -- Darwinian evolution -- is completely unscientific."I've dealt with the unscientific nature of Darwinian evolution previously on this blog here. There are also many other posts on the subject that can be referenced by doing a search (using the search engine at the top of this page) with the terms "evolution" or "Darwin."
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 5/08/2007 09:23:00 AM
|
2 Comments:
I read this all the time on Christin blogs that evolution is not scientific. Well I am a Christian (of the Southern Baptist persuasion) and a working biomedical scientist. It would come as a major surprise to almost all scientists, including Christian ones to learn that evolution is not scientific. On the contrary it is the only conceivable NATURAL explanation. I do not believe it is the whole explanation because I do not believe God is limited by nature. However, it really is a reasonably good scientific theory. I did my post-doctoral training with J. Claude Bennett, M.D. who proposed a theory for the expression of antibody proteins by rearrangement of gene segments during cellular development. There was no direct evidence and no precedent for his theory at the time. He developed the theory completely based on evoluationary consideration. It was hotly debated for 10 years. Then methods were developed that allowed it to be directly tested. He was exactly right. In my opinion, an effectively predictive model is the most stringent test of a scientific theory, and evolution has passed that test many many times. For example, a mechanism of speciation has been identified in fruit fly populations that had been separate for only 65 years. These two strains were so different that only some of them, not all, could mate and produce fertile offspring.
Evolution is most definitely scientific in a way that intelligent design is not. It is theoretically possible to disprove it. The fact that this has not been done indicates that the massive weight of evidence strongly supports the theory. I can assure you there is no conspiracy among scientists to keep quiet about findings that would tend to disprove evolution. One of the favorite and most cited scientific papers I have published disproved an idea that was regarded as well established. This helped my reputation as a scientist. Anyone who found genuinely convincing evidence against evolution would be instantly famous among fellow scientists and the public.
Finally, accepting a limited verion of evolution because the evidence is so convincing does not require one to disbelieve in God or the Bible. The Bible describes creation in a way that is generally consistent with the sequence of events in evolution (especially Chapter 1). I believe God supernaturally intervened at key points, but that most of the events associated with creation of man were natural events. Isn't that the case now? There are occasional miracles, but we don't live like we are expecting one, we live like only natural mechanisms exist. For example, we would not walk out in front of a car assuming that God would miraculously intervene. If God is the same today as He was in the beginning, why would He use an entirely supernatural mechanism for creation when He now uses mostly natural mechanisms.
Finally, I would like to simply ask are you really so certain about the scientific aspects of evolution that you are willing to allow it to prevent the effective spread of the gospel? I can tell you from experience, not from hearsay, that the vehement anti-evolution views of many evangelicals makes it essentially impossible to reach highly educated people and especially scientists for Christ. I would suggest that if there is even a slight possibility that you are wrong about this, it should be suffiient motivation not to promote the idea that evolution is wrong.
Thanks for commenting. I'll be brief (especially since I think you've commented here before saying basically the same thing...which is fine, but I'm not going into great detail when I've done it extensively before)
1. Surprise!
2. No matter how it is couched, Darwinian evolution is not consistent with Evangelical theology. Pick a side, any side, but don't think you can ride the fence.
3. Darwinian Evolution is quite clearly PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.
4. I'm not interested in evangelizing by means of compromise as you suggest is necessary. After all, it is not through convincing people intellectually that saves an individual, but completely and thoroughly through a saving work of God alone. Either come to God on His terms or you will not come at all. God is quite capable of saving those He chooses to save through self-revelation regardless of the ridiculous theories they've followed in the past.
Now, let me say in closing: I hate for this to sound too direct (because I'm a really nice guy :-) ), but this attempt by those evangelicals who've determined they can follow God on their own terms and make Scripture say whatever they want (often using arguments from silence...fallacy), I don't have a lot of time or energy to debate...respectfully.
Blessings!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home