Predisposed Faith

I read a piece the other day where the author said that, though he believes in God, he understands that for those who don’t believe to use the truth of the Bible as a basis of proof or an evidence of fact automatically shuts them off. He therefore chooses not to reference God or the Bible in conversation with those people. 

To his article someone commented something along the nature of, “I don’t mind someone claiming to believe in God. What shuts me down is when they insist upon believing something in the Bible that has been scientifically proven false.”

Here’s the thing, there is nothing in the Bible that has ever been scientifically proven to be false. 

Nothing in academia, outside of mathematics and some mechanical sciences has been proven true.{1} Nothing

• Not archeologically 
• Not anthropologically
• Not historically 

Nothing 

Not even evolution. Though evolution is almost universally accepted in the scientific community there is a great deal of disagreement in evolutionary theory. That is, as much as the atheist and agnostic hates to admit it, because there is no scientific proof for it. No one has ever observed or replicated an evolutionary process. 

Fact is, there is far more scientific evidence of the truthfulness of the Bible. The agnostic and atheist either refuses to accept the evidence or else, the thing that is much more common, they are ignorant of the evidence, choosing to listen to the theories of others rather than to search answers for themselves. 

To believe or disbelieve are both acts of faith. One faith is predisposed to accept those parts of the Word of God that has not been proven because God has proven Himself so many times before. The other faith is predisposed to disbelieve all of the Bible, most likely because they do not like the consequences of the reality of a living God. 

[1}  I’m sharing the link to an episode of Stuff You Missed in History Class today. This episode features Mohenjo Daro, an ancient city in the Indus river valley of modern day Pakistan. The entire program is fascinating but I chose to link it here specifically for the quote they give at the end of the show by George F. Dales in which are these words, “It is not uncommon to discover that yesterday’s fact is one of today’s discarded theories.”
Check it out at, https://www.missedinhistory.com/podcasts/mohenjo-daro.htm

The Scopes Trial of this Century?

Last night's debate between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Creationist, Ken Ham was slated by some to be the equivalent of a "Scopes 2". I rescheduled my day so I would be free to give it my full attention. Having the liberty of watching via the internet rather than being there, I was also free to keep up with the chatter on Twitter as the debate progressed.

My early impressions began days previous to the event as I follow Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis website on my Facebook Feed. It seemed obvious that this event, as much as anything, has been a huge publicity tool for Ken Ham's Creation Museum; the site where the debate was held. Ham encouraged watchers to visit the museum several times over the span of the debate and referenced items in the museum or staff scientists of the museum repeatedly. This has to have been a shot in the museum's arm. I also noticed early on that the major media outlets acknowledged the upcoming event but, to my knowledge, never acknowledged Ken Ham. I saw interviews of Nye, but none of Ham. It was as if they regarded him as nobody, an unknown. That is certainly not the case. If Ham seemed to have over published the event on his internet outlets, it is in no small way reconciled by the fact that he was under published by the mainstream new sources. 

Introductions were made by an excellent moderator for the event. It appeared to me the men were academically equal. Though their courses of study as well as life experiences are different, neither one outclassed the other. Nye is better known in public media but certainly not better known than Ham in the world of Christianity. I doubt many are better known than Ham as a spokesman for Creation Science.

I heard nothing surprising from either side in the debate. Ham won the coin toss and gave his opening statement and his presentation first. I found it interesting that he used video clips of creation scientists in his presentation. No small portion of his thirty minutes was taken up, not by his own voice but theirs. It was gratifying to see and hear him present a clear case for the gospel in his presentation.

Nye sounded exactly like I would have expected. He is not considered to be a scientist even though he calls himself a science guy. Many evolutionary scientists have expressed that Nye was the right guy for this debate because, in their minds, this was not a debate about science but an entertainment event. I see that as their way to excuse the whole event if Nye had made too big a mess of it. Nye did not. He did exactly what he is capable if doing; rote recitation of the evolutionary platform. 

·        He demonstrated no capability for critical thinking

·        He betrayed his gross ignorance of even the most basic Christian concepts 

·        He offered no understanding of the objections to evolutionary theory

Nye did what every ape of evolutionary theory always does; he hurriedly admitted evolution is a theory but behaved throughout his presentation as if it is fact. The jab he repeatedly poked was that this was "Ken Ham's Creation Theory" and implied he had few followers, even among Christians. 

Besides the very clear presentation of the gospel (and a number of subsequent references to it) my favorite line in the debate seemed very impromptu. The question to Nye was, "Where did the matter that resulted in the Big Bang come from?" Nye's answer was "I don't know" to which Ham replied, "There is a book..." 

There is a book that answers the most fundamental of our questions and, when embraced, liberates us to real discovery of those secrets God has hidden for our pleasure to search out.

Marvin McKenzie

In the field