The Pigeon Forge Chapter

Okay, so the creation/evolution debate has many entries in the Annals of the Wheeze Worthy, but this is a particularly strong entry. A gent named Dan Arel has posted on why Bill Nye, the Science Guy, should not debate Ken Ham. You can read all about that here.

If you choose to do so, you will encounter this . . .

“To win a debate successfully you must understand your opponent’s position better than they do, in fact, you should know it well enough that you could debate for them. Creationists have no rules, their dishonesty stops nowhere . . . Ham will care little for any facts or evidence and will stick to nonsense and will feed on audience ignorance and use terms like “irreducible complexity” to confuse the watchers into thinking he has made a valid point . . . This debate is being held at the Creation Museum itself and this will ensure that the brain-dead creationist zombies . . .”

The good news is that Arel is telling us that he could “debate for” all of us brain dead zombies. The bad news is that I think he is right. He clearly understands how we think.

That juxtaposition right there is kinda sweet — “well enough that you could debate for them. Creationists have no rules” — and it is hard to read past that in order to continue with your day. You have to come back and savor the moment. Arel is telling us that we are scientific antinomians, making it up as we go along — and you know what? — he could totally do that. You don’t even have to study for it. What I don’t understand is why he thinks Bill Nye isn’t ready for this walkover. Just think like a zombie, man! Try to drool when you talk.

Ham will no doubt stand on his chair and wave a pennant banner back and forth with the phrase irreducible complexity on it, and all the hill apes that came down from the ridges of Kentucky to that Creation Museum of his will jabber and point, and will chatter with joy over the fact that one of us has risen to the level of doing science consisting of two whole words. Sentences are next!

It is hard to type when you are shaking with laughter. I am not saying that this is what I am doing right now. I am just saying that it would be hard.

Ten bucks says that Arel couldn’t accurately restate what creationists mean by irreducible complexity if his soul depended on it, which it fortunately doesn’t.

The reason these people don’t want to debate is more straightforward than the reasons stated in Arel’s post. They don’t want to do it because they couldn’t hit a cow on the rear end with a canoe paddle. They don’t want to do it because they would get their milkshakes dranken. They don’t want to do it somebody would roll their socks down. They don’t want to do it because shut up.

This post of Arel’s is the kind of scientific writing that will likely win him a place on the masthead of the newsletter of the International Scientific Institute, Pigeon Forge chapter.

32
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
32 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
18 Comment authors
DanJill SmithDavid C DeckerSt. Leewch Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
bethyada
Member

Facts for evolutionists often means agreeing with a host of conjectures consistent with their own theory. The same observation (fact) interpreted through creationist theory is labelled a falsehood.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Is this Ham guy any good? If not, Arel’s fears should well be ours.
 
 

Andy
Member
Andy

Timothy, yes, he knows his zombie science quite well

Paul
Guest
Paul

I was wondering what your opinion of all this buzz is, may we assume by this post that you share Ham’s enthusiasm for the debate?

Melody
Guest
Melody

I followed the link to Dan Arel’s article and what struck my funny bone was his huffiness about Ken Ham’s lack of scientific credentials.  Here are Dan Arel’s credentials, as stated at the end of his article: “Dan Arel is a freelance writer, speaker and secular advocate residing in San Diego, CA. He writes on secular and humanist values on subjects such as secular parenting, church and state separation, education reform and secularism in public policy.” – So Dan doesn’t have any credibility to even comment on this debate.  And since I have only recently heard of Ken Ham (guess… Read more »

Dan
Guest
Dan

Great post.  These 2 statements sum it up well: “They don’t want to do it because they couldn’t hit a cow on the rear end with a canoe paddle.”  And: “They don’t want to do it because shut up.”  Self-proclaimed sophisticates like Arel and Nye don’t want to debate Ham, because they don’t want all their naturalistic presuppositions exposed, for fear of their house of cards crumbling down.

Justin W
Guest
Justin W

To quote Zapp Branigan: “If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards.  Checkmate.”

Chris Weitzel
Member
Chris Weitzel

Ken Ham’s ministry is Answers In Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org  I hope I’m allowed to post that here.
My family and I have been supporting that ministry for over 15years.  Everything AIG does is top-notch, professional, intellectual, evangelistic, and loving towards the lost.  Ken and the members of his staff are incredibly well versed (we’ve heard them speak on many occasions), and Nye will have his work cut out for him.

Dan
Guest
Dan

Justin, you said it.  That is exactly what they’re afraid of.  And much of the reason is what Melody alluded to: that most scientists earn their living directly or indirectly through government dollars and will go to great lengths to protect their meal ticket.  This is also the case with the global warming alarmists.  They don’t want to debate their issue either, which is why we often hear their plea of “it’s settled science”.  In other words, let’s not really debate the issue, since it might turn out they were wrong about their alarmist predictions, and consequently, the money train might slow… Read more »

Johnny Simmons
Member

Bill Nye is not the most sciencey guy around, either.

Camp Director
Guest

It’s pretty typical that the so-called “scientists” operate by poisoning the well. Once this has been done successfully then it doesn’t matter how well or poorly Nye does. Defeat in debate will be because  Ham will have refused to surrender any of the presuppositions that separate his positions from Nye’s and therefore Ham’s presentation will be deemed “unscientific.” Old tried and true fallacy.

RFB
Guest
RFB

As an ally, (and with zero projected accusations or condemnations) I think we should be cautious about using the word most. I catch myself doing it when I say something like “most people etc, etc…” I wind up having to reminds myself that I do not know most of anything, and certainly not even many people. In general, it seems as if the loudest can be generalized, but who knows if they are “the most”.

Robert
Guest
Robert

IK agree with Camp Director. Once they get the high ground , they don’t like to relinquish it.

BJ
Guest
BJ

This debate will simply fall back onto naturalistic presuppositions. Ken Ham will reveal them quite nicely with his Australian lingo, and Bill Nye will screech that they are lies, because (and I quote) “shut up.” He will go on to say stupid things like, “evolution is true, because we put men on the moon. Don’t you know anything about bacterial resistance.” Then Bill Nye will secure himself plenty of speaking engagement at anti-creationist ahem…scientific forums…ahem. He is doing it for personal popularity and financial gain. He is a schmuck who is trying to gain back his lost fame.

timothy
Guest
timothy

I am nervous about this. I am not a young-earth creationist kind of guy, one day like a thousand years and all that. I would have preferred a Dembski or Meyer.
 
Oh well,  let’s see what happens.

yom24hrday
Member
yom24hrday

I am not the least bit apprehensive, I’ve know Ken for over 25 years and he will do an outstanding job on this ” Philistine ” with his updated Ba’alism/ Ashtorethism version of the Miller experiment.

yom24hrday
Member
yom24hrday

Folks, this is going to be a great debate for us young earth creationists. I’ve known Ken for over 25 years and he will do a fine job against this ” uncircumcised Philistine ” in his updated Ba’alism/ Ashtorethism version of the Miller experiment. I’m not the least bit worried. Ecclesiastes 1:9 – The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done and there is no new thing under the sun. The miller experiment being an updated form of Ba’al/Asherah worship in that: Asherah earth goddess copulated… Read more »

Rob
Guest
Rob

I’m less confident in Ham, but Nye’s style of debate will likely follow the pattern predicted by Camp Director above.  Pointing to missing link hoaxes and the Miller experiment in a debate these days is like arguing against dancing by protesting the Charleston.  I’m with Timothy, Dembski would clearly eviscerate the guy in the bow tie, whereas I think Nye’s and Ham’s fans will both think they were the victor in this go-round.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

It is arrogant and unproductive to characterize creationists as idiots.  However, I am not sure that Pastor Wilson is not doing the same thing in suggesting that evolutionary biologist are unwilling to debate creationists because they are afraid of having Ken Ham eat their lunch on national TV.  There are many reasons why most brilliant and highly qualified biologists are not willing to debate evolution with people whose religious beliefs force them to believe that evolution cannot be true; I don’t think fear of being demolished by the superior scientific expertise of AiG is one of them.  Scientific truth is… Read more »

Dan
Guest
Dan

Jill, you said: “Scientific truth is arrived at by observation and experimentation, not debate.”  The problem is, many biologists start with a presupposition of a materialist, naturalist worldview, and thus all their “scientific” conclusions lead inevitably to naturalistic explanations.  Well of course they will.  But this is not science, it’s metaphysics, and therefore philosophy.  Secondly, you said: “But the fact remains that the vast majority of biologists who have considered creationist claims have found them unconvincing.”  I disagree.  There are a myriad reasons why they claim this, but their reasons are not always based on science.  Let’s face it, many scientists… Read more »

yom24hrday
Member
yom24hrday

Galileo was brought before the Church council due his challenging of what was then the prevailing view of that time period which was endorsed whole heartedly by the Church, not for going against what the Bible actually said. The church back then much like theistic evolutionists today who bow down to the gods of science. Whereas Louis Pasteur being another example of someone who challenged the common beliefs of his era, vis-a-vis spontaneous generation in his time and defeated that belief in one fell blow. Likewise, young earth creationists are challenging the prevailing view of our era.

Dan
Guest
Dan

My question for Jill and the theistic evolutionists is, did God create Adam directly, or did Adam evolve?  Was Adam the first man on earth as Genesis describes, or was he not the first man?  It’s interesting to find out which theistic evolutionists adhere to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and which ones do not.  Here’s another question?  In the New Testament, doesn’t Jesus clearly view Adam as a created being?  Thus, if Adam wasn’t created but merely evolved, was Jesus wrong?  Is the Bible wrong?

wch
Guest
wch

“Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims”.  Hey Arel – God has no peers.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Dan, this is the first paragraph of the papal condemnation of Galileo: Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Dan, I forgot to respond to your first point.  I agree that research scientists begin with materialistic presuppositions, but isn’t this the whole point of the scientific method?  Once we admit supernatural intervention, we have abandoned a method which is intentionally based on finding natural reasons for natural phenomena.  I can imagine a model of science in which the goal is to appreciate and explain God’s workings in creation, but this is not what most scientists see as a legitimate goal of research.  If the over-arching answer to any scientific query can be “Because this is how God planned it”,… Read more »

soylentg
Member

So the Bible believing Christian evolutionist would say that it took billions and billions of years to get from the big bang to the very first human (Adam), and then from there they can follow Adam’s rather short  genealogy as laid out in the New Testament?  Hmmm.  Either way, man’s history is rather short… that is if you go by the Bible.
It seems that some of us have a much more powerful God than others.

Dan
Guest
Dan

Jill, thanks for your replies.  This is a good discussion, and I appreciate your candid and thoughtful responses.  It’s obvious that you are quite intelligent and very well read.  However, I do have a disagreement with you.  You said: “When Christians demand that all scientific discovery support a literal reading of scripture, they are making science impossible.”  My reply is twofold: 1) Christians are not making science impossible; and 2) you seem to be elevating science above God’s Word, and thus making God’s Word subordinate to science.  In my opinion, in order to maintain a coherent Christian worldview, I believe… Read more »

yom24hrday
Member
yom24hrday

Post a comment

yom24hrday
Member
yom24hrday

Just because the church back then used scripture for their proof text doesn’t mean they also were going against the prevalent worldview, they weren’t !

yom24hrday
Member
yom24hrday

And what about the elite scientific minds just a few hundred years ago that believed dirty rags produced mice!

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

    I am enjoying this as well, and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your courtesy and patience.  I am more used to people who start yelling “Where are the crocoducks?” or who suggest I believe in evolution in order to justify a godless, immoral lifestyle.  So this is refreshing!  I think we hold quite a few presuppositions in common.  I believe that our intelligence, our thirst for knowledge, and our search for truth are attributes of the mind of God in whose image we were formed.  I believe that intellectual honesty is one of the great virtues,… Read more »

Dan
Guest
Dan

Jill, thanks for your replies.  This is the first opportunity I’ve had to get back to you.  This has been a lot of fun!  In my response, first I want to say that I actually agree with you that scientific evidence cannot ultimately conflict with the Word of God.  I’ve always held to that premise.  It would be difficult to subscribe to the inspiration and authority of Scripture if it was discovered that the Bible is fundamentally wrong about something.  I say fundamentally, since I’m not concerned about minor textual variances that were due to copying errors by scribes and… Read more »