Dr Dino?
This week I have been being annoyed by Kent Hovind of DrDino.com. I've been listening to him on a Podcast from the Infidel Guy radio show.
Kent Hovind is an 'evangelist' (his word) and is very outspoken against the theory of evolution etc.
During the two hour Podcast "Kent Hovind vs. Infidel Guy.com" he made a number of fairly good points and gave good reasons why things like carbon dating, etc., should be viewed with a certain amount of scepticality. He also pointed out a few good things about 'observed evolution' and why this is not particuarly compelling scientific proof of anything.
However, he really annoyed me by his manner.
Colossians has some good advice for Christians and how they should enter into debates and conversations with non-believers:
[4:5] Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. [4:6] Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
Grace was not evident in Mr. Hovind's conversation at all. Wisdom and seasoning with salt were also not much in evidence.
Furthermore, as is the case in almost all creation vs. evolution debates, the creationist had nothing at all to support his case, but only tried to pick holes in the evolutionary 'evidence'.
Even if it is not 'scientifically testable', the theory of evolution is 'scientifically sound' as a theory - it is a reasonably consistent explanation of how things might have happened. The creationist camp offers no rival theory. In essence, the evolutionary theory boils down to "it just happened" but has a very complex explanation of how it happened. The creationist theory is "God did it" but has no explanation at all of how He did it.
Like Kent Hovind, I am happy to call myself an evangelical Christian. But listening to that man spouting sheer arrogance for a couple of hours made me ashamed to be on 'the same side' as him.
And I was well impressed by the caller from Northern Ireland who totally caught Kent Hovind out. The caller was a research geneticist and pointed out that many advances in science had been made by using evolutionary theory. He challenged Kent Hovind to suggest one practical application of 'creation science' which, of course, he couldn't do.
3 Comments:
Hi Ricky! Got to your fine blog thru' Gareth's. Hope y'all are well. Stop by mine some time at www.themeldrums.blog-city.com
Dave Meldrum
In Proverbs it says also to think before you speak.
Well you call yourself "an evangelical Christian". However this probaly says to me as a reader that your are a Christian.
If you are 100% dedicated to Our Heavenly Father. I have this question for you as a Cristian - " Why is it SO hard to believe that The Almighty Heavenly Father created the world in six days ?"
Hi Ricky, Cool to discover you are a blogger too!
I have covered evolution on my blog in the past too. My personal view, as a believer and a scientist, is that there are two errors. One is to swallow it all wholesale (Natural Selection + Darwinist theory on origins) and the other is to reject everthing outright. Natural Selection seems to me to be good proven science, whilst the Darwinist notion that all biodiversity originates from small continuous mutations seems absurd and at odds with modern genetic knowledge.
I don't think as believers we necessarily need a scientific explanation for everything either. Our God is a god of miracles, and miracles are by definition beyond the realm of scientific explanation. I can't explain scientifically how Jesus walked on the water, turned water into wine, was born of a virgin or rose from the dead, but I don't doubt them for a moment.
Creation too was a miraculous act of God, and so I don't feel the need to defend it scientifically.
Post a Comment
<< Home