Many have criticized the debate. Saying it was a complete waste of time. But I beg to differ. I think they both presented their views pretty well. The problem came with Bill Nye’s lack of understanding of the distinction between observational and historical science. He takes them and combines them mixing those sciences. Ham was right on when he talked about interpretation of origins or historical science. You have to make assumptions and take it on faith since nobody observed the origins of the universe.
Nobody observed the origins of the universe.
But we all have our origins story.
The evolutionist. They theorize that way back in history where nobody was, a cell in primordial soup began to divide and grow and has resulted after millions of years into the world we have today.
They didn’t watch that happen. Nobody did.
Nobody watched God make the world in the creation model. Adam didn’t but God did.
God gave his word and so much of it has been fulfilled. So based on the literal understanding of God word, because of God’s faithfulness in keeping His word, therefore He is trustworthy to communicate valid historical events.
For Christians who walk the fence, and give in to the pressure of evolution but believe the Bible is true. Therefore end up believing what is called: Theistic Evolution. I have to lay a couple things before you.
- If natural selection and random chance and survival of the fittest along with adaptation took place, then when did sin and death enter into the world, because according to Romans 5, man sinned and brought death and death spread to all men because all sinned.
- What do you do with the existence of the first man?
- How do you trust what God has said when it comes to your salvation, IF you can’t trust what He has spoken about creation?
- Jesus spoke of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11, so do you disagree with Jesus Christ? The Son of God? uhhhhh?
- What are the social implications with a theistic evolution worldview when it comes to ethics and morality?
I hope we think logically about all of this. And are honest with ourselves when it comes to interpreting historical science. I am not angry about the debate I believe it went well. My hope is though that we would love God with our minds and if you don’t love God, I urge you friend to consider all the facts, but realize that there is a point where you can’t lean on empirical facts, but have to take what God has said on faith. Just as you believed BY FAITH what DARWIN has said about origins. He wasn’t there, but he sure did try and interpret what life was like “millions” of years ago.
Listen Intently. Keep thinking. Keep discussing. Stand Firm.
Here is a far greater article than my own and an audio briefing from my hero, Albert Mohler: