Bill Nye’s New World Order

When the video ended, in a moment of maddening rage I contemplated breaking my iPad.

I had just concluded watching a 3 hour debate between Ken Ham the infamous “young earth” CEO of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye “the Science Guy” on the topic of Creationism as a model to be taught to our youth.  In my heart of hearts I knew that I was going to be angry at this “culture wars” spectacle and left deeply disillusioned and disgruntled on so many levels.  However I felt it was my duty as a pastor and as one who tries to keep his finger on the pulse of culture to grit my teeth and tune in.  From my understanding #creationdebate was for a fleeting moment the number one trending topic on the internet that night alongside #JustinBieber and #hotties.  Jesus had to be so proud.

If the responsibility fell on my shoulders to choose a living representative for the Christian world I would have gone with the revered apologist Ravi Zacharias. I do not believe that the debate over creationism is simply a scientific/academic one. Yet on this fateful day, at this time I found Ken Ham to be “our guy.”

The debate was unspectacular on many levels.  There were a few good one liners, straw man arguments and polarizing opinions all of which were to be expected in an event of this nature.  When the debate ended, when the video bar had run it’s course and I realized that the circus was over I was stunned and shocked at one glaring omission.

I was waiting for it the whole time with bated breath; the big nasty question for non-theists; the one of Moral Lawgiver.  I thought, “surely Ham will bring this up, it’s the best weapon we in this debate.”  I felt like a kid watching Hulk Hogan wrestle and NOT hit the leg drop, or Wolverine to NOT use his claws, or the Steelers  NOT throw the ball to Heath Miller….

I have never heard a satiating argument to the question of “who sets the rules?”  It’s the biggie, the one that ought keep atheists up at night.  If it isn’t God, then who?  The king? The government?  The people? The media?  Those answers make all of mankind squeamish for a very good reason.

If a highly armed shooter waltzes into an elementary school and opens fire on a classroom full of kindergarteners who is to say he’s wrong?  What if he is just carrying out his beliefs concerning the survival of the fittest? Sure, we’ll avenge those kids and kill him (if he doesn’t put a bullet in his own brain first) but was he objectively wrong?

How can we be sure that Hitler was wrong?  Yes, I went there.  Doesn’t every  morality debate end with Nazis?

We keep hearing Nye talk about a world in which morality and progress should be driven by an evolutionary worldview.  He annoyingly pleaded with voters and taxpayers to consider the ramifications of choosing else wise.

My question is “what does Bill Nye’s New World Order look like according to evolution’s principles of survival of the fittest?”  What becomes of the old, the weak, the obese, the suicidal, the retarded, the disabled etc?  Aren’t they just holding society down?  Should we expend valuable resources to allow them to continue their existence?  What about unwanted children, unborn or otherwise?  Where is the line to be set and could you pull the lever of the guillotine?

Are we willing to lose our souls for progress?

But wait…..we don’t have souls do we? We are a meaningless conglomeration of molecules that came together purely by chance billions and billions of years ago.  Well then; carry on Bill Nye!  Guide us into the future!

Image

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Bill Nye’s New World Order

  1. Paul Bradshaw

    I have been giving this some thought of why the whole thing from the beginning left a weird taste in my mouth and I have come up with a couple of thoughts.

    First, I really don’t find much love in debates. It doesn’t mean that I don’t handle conflict, but there never seems to be anything loving about them.

    Second, when confronted by the Pharisees Jesus did answer them but was not drawn into trying to prove his “correctness”. Most of the time he would ask them a question (like all good rabbis) and then go on his way. Yes he could be harsh, (white washed tombs and such) but there was not a drawn out, try to prove I am right, thing. Why? (You answer that. I get to be the rabbi now LOL)

    Dave if I would have had my choice I would have N. T. Wright debate him but he is an old earth guy so that would not have worked.

    As an argument of the moral law giver, it doesn’t really fit into the whole old earth young earth thing, and for the most part people just look around the world and say, “Are you kidding? If he set the rules why is the earth so f’d up?” (sorry to use shortened profanity but that is what they would say!).

    I have come to the conclusion that I myself will stay out of debates (unless on facebook LOL). I want to show Christ’s love in the good works that he has prepared for me long, long ago.

    Paul

    Reply
  2. NotAScientist

    “I have never heard a satiating argument to the question of “who sets the rules?”

    We do.

    Which is scary, yeah. But no one ever said the truth wasn’t scary.

    “If a highly armed shooter waltzes into an elementary school and opens fire on a classroom full of kindergarteners who is to say he’s wrong?”

    We are. If you disagree, then I will choose not to form or live in a society with you.

    “but was he objectively wrong?”

    What do you mean by the word ‘objectively’, and why should I care?

    “My question is “what does Bill Nye’s New World Order look like according to evolution’s principles of survival of the fittest?” ”

    Your question misunderstands what survival of the fittest is. It is about species, not individuals.

    Reply
  3. davidjhardie Post author

    So if “We” choose that Rape is ethical does that mean that it is?
    Survival of the Fittest Applies to species and to individuals. It permeates the entire worldview.

    Reply
    1. NotAScientist

      “So if “We” choose that Rape is ethical does that mean that it is?”

      Does that mean it is according to whom? To the people who say it is, yes. To me, no. But I determine morality through harm and benefit.

      “It permeates the entire worldview.”

      It’s a science, not a worldview. And no, it doesn’t.

      Reply
      1. Eschaton

        There were many cultures where rape was not an issue and men were allowed to plunder, rape and murder with no threat of prison. There are cultures today where people can do horrible things to others ans they are not punished.

        Are those people still wrong when they murder and rape?

      2. AntiNWO

        Your idea that people will come to a consensus about what you think is “right” will never happen. Absolute truth exists and it is not made up by “us” or you. Also the concept of harm and benefit has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. If I steal a car from a rich person, it will benefit me a lot, and it won’t harm him at all cause he has 5 others just like it. Does that mean it’s right to steal his car? If someone aborts a baby cause they think it will “benefit” their life so they can go do whatever they want, even though they killed a child, is that wrong? What if your “harm” someone out of self defense? Is that wrong? This theory is full of holes and a system of morality cannot be based off of it. They tried that already it’s called utilitarianism, and it is basically what hitler believed, that certain people “harm” society and need to be gotten rid of. Certain things benefit us, so we should have more of them. It’s hogwash.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s