In the comments following my review of the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, a commenter named Mike G. claimed that the results of the RATE project (a creationist effort to determine if radioisotope dating actually supports a young age for the earth) had been debunked by “legitimate physicists.” This comment prompted me to spend most of the day catching up on the published material in this area. I had read much of the material previously, but I found several additional articles that I had not previously been aware of.
To prepare for my response to atheist Sam Harris’s $2,000 challenge, I downloaded both the Kindle version of his book and the audio book version which is read by Harris himself. I also downloaded about eight hours worth of Harris’s various talks and lectures. As I listened to the audio book, I began to be more and more aware of bits of Buddhist thought which Harris was sneaking into the text. I found this intriguing, but not necessarily surprising. Most atheists have an affinity for Buddhism as a result of their shared desire to eliminate negative emotions. What did surprise me, however, was the discovery that Harris is a practicing Buddhist.
This morning, I directed my web browser to debatelive.org and watched the recording of the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. The question being posed to the two opponents was “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham argued in the affirmative that the creation model should have a place in scientific discussions of origins, and Nye argued in the negative that the creation model proposed by Ham is detrimental to scientific progress. I thought that Ham did an excellent job of supporting his view with credible examples, but I was awestruck by the level of ignorance that Nye displayed in regards to the creation model.
In yesterday’s article, I presented a view of the inspiration of Scripture which I think is more consistent with the actual contents of Scripture than any other view. In considering that view, we looked at several statements that both Peter and Paul made about their writings. Today, I’d like to look at a few pieces of circumstantial evidence which support that view.
Over the past couple of days, I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the topic of the inspiration of Scripture. This is a subject that I had always viewed in a more or less straightforward manner. I’ve been reading and studying the Bible for as long as I can remember, and I sort of developed a view of inspiration along the way. In all my years of study, I never found any reason to change my view on this issue, and now, after reading several books and articles on the subject, I still have not found any reason to change. I have discovered, however, that many renowned Christian philosophers have published views on this subject which differ from my own. In light of that, I decided to put my view of inspiration into writing and submit it to my readers for their consideration.
Bill Fortenberry is a Christian philosopher and historian in Birmingham, AL. Bill's work has been cited in several legal journals, and he has appeared as a guest on shows including The Dr. Gina Show, The Michael Hart Show, and Real Science Radio.
Contact Us if you would like to schedule Bill to speak to your church, group, or club.
"Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning." (Proverbs 9:9)