Ham's position that the Bible has presented him with all the answers he needs to know makes a mockery of some very rich religious traditions while undercutting the very foundation of science.
This weekend, the Sunday morning political shows on NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox News all spent some time discussing climate change. And it was a classic case of 'be careful of what you wish for.'
The Green News Report is also available via... ...
The climate is hot right now. I mean talking about climate change. It's in the news is what I mean!! Actually, the climate is hot, too, but that was a...
Depending on what kind of faith you have, you might have to choose between it and the scientific evidence for evolution. If your faith is rigid, unyielding, or inflexible, you might have to choose. If your faith is unable to cope with a constantly changing world, you might have to choose.
To most watching last week's debate between creationist Ken Ham and science educator Bill Nye, it was a battle between religion and science. But to creationists -- a group which not too long ago included me -- it was something else entirely: a battle over the very meaning of science itself.
Darwin's impact on the world far transcends science. And yet, I'd be disappointed if this celebration of all things Darwinian began and ended with the great naturalist.
The recent "debate" between Ken Ham, the head of the world's largest creationist organization, and Bill Nye, the science guy, was certainly lucrative....
Holding yourself up to be the ultimate authority is not Christian. Drawing a line between yourself and others is not Christian. Mocking, scoffing at, and arguing with others are not Christian traits.
Religion must happily, and without fear, enter the wider stream of discourse about the nature of reality, confident that truth does not contradict truth.
Since 1925 the Creationists have been scrambling to recover from Clarence Darrow's complete obliteration of the credibility of Genesis as a scientific basis for our origins.
The great debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye attracted huge attention. It also presented a false dichotomy.
The goal is not to defend the absurd idea of young-earth creationism, but rather biblical literalism, the ideology from which fundamentalists draw their strength.
To be honest, I think that we need to have a very different kind of a conversation about "origins" than what was had Tuesday night. I think that the entire conversation needs to be focused on what the Bible is and is not.
Faith is a personal matter, and should never be a cudgel to stifle inquiry. We tried that approach about 1,200 years ago. The experiment was called the Dark Ages.
So the aftermath, was this debate a mistake? Yes. Regardless of how well Nye did, and he did better than many predicted he would, Ham still got airtime.