BioLogos, a Christian organization, interviews Bill Nye about evolution and Ken Ham. And Iceland is building a temple to Thor and the gang!
BioLogos & Bill Nye
Kramer asked Nye if he’d change anything about his debate performance. Nye’s response was a bummer:
The debate was nominally about creationism as a “viable” explanation for what we observe around us. For my side, the debate went very well; I’m not sure what I would change, although I can imagine shortening my answers during the rebuttals, perhaps.
It seems that Nye still doesn’t get what went wrong. There are four things he should have changed:
- He should have said that Ken Ham’s flavor of creationism is a recent invention.
- He should have stressed that Ham’s creationism is arbitrary.
- He should have asked if any non-Christians believe in a young earth.
- And he should have talked even more about how Christianity and evolution aren’t mutually exclusive.
For detailed arguments about each of these points, click here.
“Iceland to build first temple to Norse Gods in 1,000 years”
Religion News Service has the details:
Worship of the gods in Scandinavia gave way to Christianity around 1,000 years ago but a modern version of Norse paganism has been gaining popularity in Iceland.
“I don’t believe anyone believes in a one-eyed man who is riding about on a horse with eight feet,” said Hilmar Orn Hilmarsson, high priest of ‘Asatruarfelagid’, an association that promotes faith in the Norse gods.
“We see the stories as poetic metaphors and a manifestation of the forces of nature and human psychology.”
Wow, I guess the marketing for Thor and the new Avengers movie is getting pretty creative.
“Thou Shalt Not Question Stephen Fry”
Last week, I posted a clip of atheist Stephen Fry describing what he’d say to God. Among other criticisms, Fry lambasted God’s morals and called God “utterly monstrous.”
In an interesting Threads article, Andy Walton highlights the irony of Fry’s morality-based critique.
Fry tells us morality is “not something that comes from outside of human beings.” Well Stephen, that’s fine. But if that’s the case, on what basis did you describe the actions of God as “evil” this week? If you don’t believe in an independent source of morality, that’s ok, and philosophically consistent. But don’t then appeal to concepts like ‘good’ and ‘evil’ to describe things you approve or disapprove of! That’s having your cake and eating it.
I also touched on this point in last week’s comment section.
“Why Did God Allow Evil?”
Speaking of God and evil, check out a new post from ReKnew, theologian Greg Boyd‘s blog. Read how it ends:
If God desires a bride made up of people who genuinely love him (see Jn 17)—who do not just act lovingly toward him—he must create people who have the capacity to reject him. He must endow agents with self-determination. They, not he, must determine whether or not they will love him and each other. And this, I submit, explains why God created a world in which evil was possible. If love is the goal, it could not be otherwise. God chose to create a world in which evil is possible only in the sense that he chose to create a world in which love is possible. The possibility of evil is not a second decision God makes; it is implied in the single decision to have a world in which love is possible. It is, in effect, the metaphysical price God must pay if he wants to arrive at a bride who says yes to his triune love.
What do you think of Boyd’s words?