An evolving debate
Alan Watson has left a comment asking about my up-coming Creation Wars programmes -- who are the contributors, what will we be covering, etc. Currently, we're planning two programmes, a documentary followed by a live discussion with a panel and audience. I am fascinated by the creation-evolution debate, and over the years I've interviewed many of the key international movers and shakers involved I'd be interested in your ideas about the issues we should focus on in the documentary and audience programme.
Comments
Im interested in the intelligent design stuff thats getting a lot of talk in america these days. Is that just another name for the same bible view or is there something in it that im missing? what are Will's views on on this?
Intelligent Design is just an amalgamation of Creationism with pseudo-science although adherants have been on a crusade claiming it is not a religious belief. But the judge (republican christian! ) in the Dover school case disagreed, saying in effect it was an attept to get around the seperation of church and education in the USA.
Sounds like a nice idea for a programme. I would interview KEN HAM, the creationist behind ANSWERS IN GENESIS, thats the best creationist website in the world. Id love to see how he deals with your questions.
I still think Creationism should be taught along side Evolution so that Democracy can evolove in the Educational System [at least in the USA where I live].
Ken Ham would be a good interview. For a producer though, the central problem is how to deal with the nitty-gritty of the debate without descending into a physics exchange that would lose most of the audience. That's the trick of radio, I guess. That said, Ken Ham is used to speaking to laypeople - some would say he can ONLY speak to laypeople!
I'd get out of bed early to hear that discussion.
Teaching creationism would be like teaching astrology - utter nonsense! - Neither have any scientific or educational truth!!
The only hint of religion which should be 'studied' in schools is comparative religion (including unbelief). Teaching of relgion (beliefs) should be confined to church and the home.
Ken Ham would be a good person to have on the panel although he has a very busy schedule. Answers in Genesis (UK) would probably be able to provide a spokesperson for the programme. I'd get in contact with them.
I, too, have been fascinated with the Creation/Evolution debate for many years. One of the biggest arguments is usually to do with the quality and reliability of transitional fossils - if you could get some people from the different camps to discuss this, that might be good.
I also think it'd be good to address the intelligent design issue. I have a belief that all the factors of this world are so because they were directed as such i.e. distance from sun, planet size, strength of gravity, etc, etc. I think this is loosely known as (or addressed by the term) the "Anthropic Principle", but it might be worth getting people to talk about that.
Maybe Alan Watson vs Ken Ham!!
After that debate who will feel sorry for who, Alan?
I have been interested in the debate between creation and evolution for years.
Some months ago I had the opportunity of translating a chapter of Kenneth R. Miller's 'Finding Darwin's God' to Spanish. I think he has clear ideas, is able to express them easily and is a good speaker (I also agree with many of what he says... :-)).
I think these programs are a great idea which could help a lot of people to understand the real issues involved in the debate.
Thanks for making it possible.
The problem with NOT teaching creation is that you are entering the realm you accuse a Creationist of. You charge a Creationist with trying to brainwash children with their stories of a young earth etc., yet you refuse to let anything other than evolution be taught. There are many scientific groups that either partly or wholly disagree with evolution as taught. Besides, if God perhaps DID create the earth, why couldn't you teach that? If it is perhaps an historical fact, why dance around it for the sake of pc. A Creationist can argue that evolution is based on faith also. You believe that God did NOT create the world, based on faith. Both sides have the same evidence, interpreted different ways. Neither side was there so must thus base their theory on faith. If ID is Creationism in disguise, then Evolution is atheism in disguise. Both are religious worldviews, whether you like it or not.
Does anyone REALLY take evolution seriously anymore? I mean, come on, it is the most silly of all theories existing in science today. It is the only theory that has zero evidence to corroborate it and the one God-haters use the most to substantiate their immorality.
Evolution = immorality. What other equation do you really need to know?