Davison's Doodle

Evolution and Creation

Like many, my companion and I watched, well as much as we could ingest, the Nye and Ham “debate” on the topic, “Is creationism a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”  I wonder what Nye thought he would accomplish?  Debating Ham only elevates his worldview that is founded in Christian Dominionism though I doubt that is a term Ham would use.  It was frustrating and hard to watch the “debate” as it set Christianity, including my practice of it, against science.  Rather than Nye it would have been better for a mainline biblical scholar or some other respected scholar of Christianity to listen to and then talk with Ham and an audience that was clearly in his pocket.  One person I follow on Twitter suggested that Walter Brueggemann “debate” Ham next time so that Ham’s version of Christianity is not the only “kind” broadcast as the way people who claim Christian faith think, believe, or interact with the world.  Though, Ham’s orthodox soteriology, that he presented so well in a graph near the end of his 30 minute opening, is sung, prayed, preached, celebrated at eucharist, and taught in one form or another across the Christian theological spectrum weekly, from the fundamentalist to the liberal alike.

In the end, Nye allowed Ham to broadly define science as atheism and Christians, at least his brand of Christianity, the only true possessors of truth.  For me, science and religious faith answer different questions that don’t compete.  I don’t interact with the world, observe the world, or understand how nature works through the mythology of Genesis nor the Christianity that reads Jesus back into the Old Testament. That is not the hermeneutic I bring to the bible.  Mortal beings don’t suffer death because of sin.  If you want another word or two on that statement connect with my companion, the First Testament biblical scholar, who can help you translate the texts for what they say rather than the orthodox Christian meaning assigned to them to round out a narrative about Christ Jesus.  No, that is not what the bibllical stories are meant to be or meant to do.  Maybe at one time they were meant for this, but humanity is orbiting the earth, exploring depths of the seas, curing disease, and awakening to our destructive footprint on this planet that, like others in our solar system, is going through a lifecycle.  Ham left no room for how other religions might account for creation because the bible is his history book, though he could not account for the two stories of creation, and his dominionism cannot allow for other truth or Truths.  Thinking of the bible as accurate history is like calling Jesus, “Christ.”

In the end I am much more interested how Ham’s worldview or Nye’s worldview interact with “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Me, I don’t have kids of my own, but I advocate for kids and I want them to have the very best science, math, literature, and social science education that is based on discovery and questions rather than on religious belief so they can cultivate a balanced neighborhood that spans the globe.

Here is a snippet of an interesting reflection from Tyler Francke posted at God’s Politics at Sojourners.

When “Creationists” Aren’t Really Creationists

Intentionally or not, the haphazard misuse of such a loaded word foments anti-religious sentiment and further entrenches the faith vs. science paradigm. I offer a simple alternative, one that is already used frequently by such organizations as the National Center for Science Education: “anti-evolutionist.”  Click here to read the entire post.