The Narrow Path Ministries

On September 20, 2013 a debate was held at The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Corvallis between myself (Jon Perry, founder of StatedClearly.com), and Steve Gregg here at theNarrowPath.com. The agreed topic was 'Science has demonstrated the theory of evolution to be true'. I was in support of the assertion, Steve against.

The entire debate was several hours long but the video is broken into segments of 10 to 45 min. In every segment we each do a presentation. The last segment is the longest, it is where we stood on stage together answering questions from the crowd.

Note to Steve: as we discussed, I created 'fact check' slides which appear whenever one of us misspeaks. Obviously I'm biased in favor of my own cause. I only found one misspoken "fact" on my part but several on your part. If you have some to add, email me letting me know what to write and at what time to insert them. I can put them in as YouTube annotations. If you have any further rebuttals or clarification you'd like to add, I can create link annotations which will appear in the video as you talk and if clicked on will take viewers to your article or video where you clarify your point. Also, if you'd like me edit the video description to more accurately/thoroughly summarize your position, just shoot me an email.

YouTube comments are often extremely rude so I recommend everyone stay away from getting sucked in. A more reasonable discussion will hopefully take place on my website and in this forum.

The videos can be found here on my site: http://www.StatedClearly.com/evolution- ... eve-gregg/

They can also be found here on YouTube (this link goes to the YouTube playlist where one plays right after the other): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEcau2Lp ... 5qgiCRwf2m

Hello Jon,

Using the definition of the word science, using "The Puzzle" analogy will only lead you into a never ending search for the last "Piece". Because the reality is, "There is no last piece".

Eternity is all around us in what we visibly see. But what clearly is visible inevitably becomes invisible and science lack of understanding falls into unbelief and why? Because they will never have a powerful enough microscope to see it.

We are blessed to see and learn what used be invisible. Great advancements were gained by this knowledge and yet there's an eternal treasure trove that will be forever untouched.

Now here's the scary part. The further we are blessed to go, the more complicated the engineering becomes and we will never have reached the saying of "scratching the eternal surface".

Should this humble someone in their pursuit of answers?

Science is great, but it will only lead you to an eternal (Supernatural) authority from which it originated. By yielding, you will in fact embrace your pursuit of knowledge in the sciences through the very source that fuels it (The Supernatural).

God Bless and take care!

Robby,

What a great response. For what it's worth, I am in strong agreement with you and my heart was touched by your words:

I thought of this verse:

Mark 8:18 "HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE ? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR ?

Jarrod

robbyyoung wrote:Eternity is all around us in what we visibly see. But what clearly is visible inevitably becomes invisible and science lack of understanding falls into unbelief and why? Because they will never have a powerful enough microscope to see it.

We are blessed to see and learn what used be invisible. Great advancements were gained by this knowledge and yet there's an eternal treasure trove that will be forever untouched.

Now here's the scary part. The further we are blessed to go, the more complicated the engineering becomes and we will never have reached the saying of "scratching the eternal surface".

Should this humble someone in their pursuit of answers?

Science is great, but it will only lead you to an eternal (Supernatural) authority from which it originated. By yielding, you will in fact embrace your pursuit of knowledge in the sciences through the very source that fuels it (The Supernatural).

Hi Brother Jarrod,

Thank you and to God be the glory, for just like you, I was reminded of God's Word in the following passages:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Our dear brother Jon's evolution study should in no way lead him away from God's voice. Because those who are blessed to understand such disciplines, which I am not, are privileged see and hear that eternal voice ever pulling them deeper into the unknown of "His eternal power".

Without straying too far from Jon's thread, I believe these comments should aid him in "Not Forgetting His First Love".

God Bless!

robbyyoung wrote:Jon's evolution study should in no way lead him away from God's voice...

I fully agree that the science of evolution does not need to lead people away from their religion or belief in a Creator. This is why I started my presentation talking about Biologos and the many Christians who study and accept evolution but still maintain faith in God.

I recently spoke with Steve on the radio about his thoughts on the possibility of accepting the Bible as being inerrant yet still seeing the creation story as a metaphor. He said (and this is a loose summary) that even though he does not see the creation story as a metaphor, he could easily do so and still maintain his belief that the Bible is inerrant.

I am not religious nor do I actively maintain a belief in God but this is not because of science. Sincere relationships with those around me are what I find most valuable in life. In my experience, faith has been destructive to those relationships. I see it as a largely divisive force. The mess in Nigeria right now is a perfect example. Hatred and violence there is fueled by many things, religion/faith being in the forefront.

Since leaving the Mormon faith which I was brought up in, it has become much easier to see my neighbors as family, to respect and appreciate their different points of view, and to sincerely care about them.

That's my experience, I know that other people have had very different experiences and I respect that.

Here you can listen to Steve and I's recent radio conversation: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/archive/TNP131029H.mp3

I'm caller number 2

My goal in science education is NOT to convert people to agnosticism but to help them understand science. I see the Young Earth Creation movement as an obstacle to learning which I, if I am to be a good teacher, should help students overcome.

jonperry wrote:Sincere relationships with those around me are what I find most valuable in life. In my experience, faith has been destructive to those relationships.

Then it seems clear your faith was in the wrong thing. Have you considered that possibility?

Since leaving the Mormon faith which I was brought up in, it has become much easier to see my neighbors as family, to respect and appreciate their different points of view, and to sincerely care about them.

I find my faith has pretty much the same effect in that regard, as leaving Mormonism had for you. But I grew up in a Christian denomination that, while orthodox in beliefs, has some sociological similarities to Mormonism, so I understand why it did that to you.

My goal in science education is NOT to convert people to agnosticism but to help them understand science. I see the Young Earth Creation movement as an obstacle to learning which I, if I am to be a good teacher, should help students overcome.

How would you relate that goal to Old Earth Creationism?

jonperry wrote:I am not religious nor do I actively maintain a belief in God but this is not because of science. Sincere relationships with those around me are what I find most valuable in life. In my experience, faith has been destructive to those relationships. I see it as a largely divisive force. The mess in Nigeria right now is a perfect example. Hatred and violence there is fueled by many things, religion/faith being in the forefront.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for sharing your personal story. I find it highly commendable when others share their private lives with strangers, I do not take this for granted nor will I trample them under foot as we seek common ground. Jon, my last post dealt with the eternal unknown, supernatural evidence if you will, therefore IMHO, it would be untenable to argue against this position, consider the following:

If a practical definition of science is the study of facts in and of the natural world, and the natural world shows evidence of the "Supernatural" isn't it tenable to believe, and study the concept of the material world coming into existence with age built in it?

Adam and Eve, for instance, were created as full grown adults (created with age). As I stated before, the sciences, especially those called and gifted to unlock it's secrets, should draw you closer to the source behind it. The simplicity of the account, God spoke these things into existence, need not to be discredited. The example of how these things transpired is given in the first man and woman example.

So here's the question for the scientist. How's does this change the study of the material creation by factoring in "the age being in itself"?

Science must consider it, and if not, why not?

Next, my desire, as it should be no secret to you, is that you humbly not reject the God of the Bible. Jon, I believe of an eye witness account of 12 men. Some of them left a written record of their experiences in letters and books to a generation that was about to experience something that would forever change the minds and hearts of men. These men were inspired, and only their account is to be believed on as truth. Why, because Peter was given the authoritative control over what was already loosed and bound in heaven. And he said, Paul's letters as with the rest of the scriptures, were authoritative.

So I humbly ask that you return to the New Testament, and only the New Testament, and read afresh of the account written in the 1st Century. Leave the conversation, promises and expectations there, with the original audience of the 1st Century, and then see if it makes a difference. Trust me, I know what man has done to this ancient faith, and continues to do.

But I regress, back to science. Of all people, scientist should be humbled to the evidence of God, and this is why. Take a look at this passage in Colossians 1:16 "for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him - all things, whether visible or invisible..." add this one as well, Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse."

Here's the connection. The argument is, since God is invisible, and shows no proof of His existence, He therefore doesn't exist for lack of visible proof. Well wait a minute! As a scientist shouldn't you reject this assertion outright? All scientist know beyond our visible perception there exist eternal knowledge. Microbes were once invisible to us, so was the Atom, etc... With this extreme knowledge, how in the world can anyone debate about God's existence being outside our current perception? Without excuse is exactly right! This is why it shocks me to hear a scientist use this argument or reasoning to not believe. Although you said, this is not entirely your reasoning

As a matter of fact, the eternal creation is the proof of all that is invisible! God says, He's in that realm beyond our limited perception. There will never be a technology that will see what we know exist beyond our perpetual, visible knowledge. God will always and forever be beyond it and yet in it!

Don't allow the silliness of man's clever religious dogma rob you of God's eternal power, speaking to you in the study of science. God bless!

robbyyoung wrote:...the natural world shows evidence of the "Supernatural"...

I have to disagree with that. We have no evidence of anything supernatural. We only have evidence of unknowns. When we don't have an answer to a question, the correct thing to do is to simply admit that we don't know. I find many religious people looking at unknowns and saying "That's God" or "That's Supernatural". This kind of thinking leads us to dead ends, often prematurely.

Let me give you a real life example:

My Roommate comes from a part of the world filled with superstition and strange religions. He is a Christian and has been taught that those of other religions in his home country are Satan worshipers. His sister recently died without any sign of illness. She dropped dead walking into a bank where she works. Her family and my roommate all believe she was cursed by a Satan worshiper. Having decided this, they refused to have an autopsy done to investigate the cause of death.

It's possible that the autopsy would come up with no known cause for death (there are many things we don't know about our bodies) but it's likely they could have found something. Maybe she and her siblings have a genetic illness which needs attention. Maybe she was intentionally poisoned, maybe there is a contaminant in the water she drank. All of these things would be good to know but are now being ignored by her family because they would rather believe her death was supernatural.

In biology the creation model simply doesn't work well. It tells us very little about how nature functions. Evolution on the other hand gives us a great deal of applicable understanding.

An understanding of evolution (particularly selective pressures) is helping control malaria cheaper and more effectively: http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_ewald_ask ... germs.html

An understanding of macro evolution led Allan Savory to his discovery of how to reverse desertification: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_h ... hange.html

Ray Greek is using his understanding of macro evolution to predict in advance, what types of animal experimentation will provide data which can be directly applied to human medicine, and which types can not. http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdfpl ... /pme.11.89

I'd like to note that Ray Greek (like many medical doctors) was a creationist at one time. When he began doing research he saw that creationism was leading him into dead end after dead end. He finally made the switch to evolution because it worked. In his case, creationism was married so heavily with his religion that he gave up his religion when giving up creationism. I'm sure other factors were also involved.

I do not desire to take away people's religious beliefs but there needs to be a balance of some kind. In my opinion the biologos concept of Evolutionary Creation is an acceptable compromise. http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism

Hi Jon,

I figure I'll toss my two-cents in. I had written this for a friend a while back, so I've included parts of it in this text body. I've used it before in this forum, so I apologize for the other than 100% originality to this post.

G.K. Chesterton wrote:

“The worst judge of [Christianity] is the man now most ready with his judgments; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard.”

Being a former member of the Watchtower Society, my experience in dealing personally (and closely) with perhaps more than 75 ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses (and innumerable “exes” from a variety of religious groups) has put me in a position to be a reasonably good judge of what becomes of people in this category. Most of these people end up with a confused notion of faith at best. Others become deists, agnostics, or self-described atheists.

I have found that by and large most people who are self described agnostic, or self-claimed “atheist”, usually have one or more of the following in common:

A.) Having been raised as a fundamentalist (JWs included)
B.) Having been raise irreligious
C.) Having had a traumatic childhood that included a violation of trust from an adult in whom trust was expected or placed.

Not that there aren’t people that fall between the cracks of my description above, but my own studied observation as well as that of others seems to bear this out. Consideration of this gives me pause to reflect on Jesus’ words:

Then he said to his disciples: “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come! It would be of more advantage to him if a millstone were suspended from his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones.”—Luke 17:1, 2.

In being disabused of religious beliefs there is an additional problem that comes from being raised in a “special” sect; a sect that presupposes that it alone is the sole possessor of divine truth, and that is this: such groups tend to speak harshly against the “whore” of Babylon; to denigrate traditional churches, both Catholic and Protestant alike. In so doing they cull examples that span history as a way to point out their flaws and hypocrisy. All of the "heavy lifting" as it were is already done in seeing the hypocrisy of religion. Once having been spoon-fed this steady diet of negativity towards “Christendom astray”—and then discovering that they themselves were no more than members of another sect of Christendom—there is no where to go. Hence, having left the religion of last resorts, so to speak, they figure they'll bunch it all—including God.

This may not be the case with all agnostic/atheists, but it certainly seems to be the case with the majority I have had dealings with.

There is also another thing; the human tendancy to give justification for making a choice. When someone decides to give up something, in this case belief in God, I'm sure the over-arching psychological need is to make the thing abandoned seem as useless, counterproductive or pernicious as possible. If someone sees belief in a Creator as somehow impeding their scientific inquiry, and such inquiry is crucial, then of course, the only reasonable thing to do would be to jettison this road-block to progress. And we all like to be thought of as reasonable, right?

But I have yet to understand why someone views belief in a Creator as a road-block to inquiry. I would submit that people in general are often uninquiring, regardless of their beiefs. I have a good friend who is an atheist. Good guy, but clearly would rather talk about sports than anything else. I have other friends that are commited believers, but would rather talk about anything but sports and want to know how and why things work. If your experiences are different, then we must run in very different circles. Comparing the vestigial superstitions of animists that grandfather them into their new Christian paradigm hardly qualifies as an example of belief in a Creator causing a deterrant to scientific curiousity.

Either way, I think you might benefit from some candid soul-searching (if I can use that term) as to why you have the conviction that belief in a Creator is an impediment to intellectual progress; exactly how much have you jettisoned of your past Mormon baggage and mindsets? and how might these mindsets be playing a role in your current conclusions?

Regards, Brenden.

PS. Are you really blessed with Dick Clark's genes, or was this photo taken when you were in Junior High?

jonperry wrote:I have to disagree with that. We have no evidence of anything supernatural. We only have evidence of unknowns. When we don't have an answer to a question, the correct thing to do is to simply admit that we don't know. I find many religious people looking at unknowns and saying "That's God" or "That's Supernatural". This kind of thinking leads us to dead ends, often prematurely.

Jon, are you being disingenuous? - You are going to cry uncle concerning this issue, so say "uncle"

Here we go again my friend. Is not eternity "SUPERNATURAL"?

If not, why not?

"Unknowns" don't help with the reality of eternity looking at you square in the face. That's what makes it "Supernatural", it cannot be explained, ever

An eternal source of information will keep you in a perpetual "premature dead end", how can you argue against this?

God spoke, and creation as we know it came into being with "age already built in it" and what science is observing is the natural process that follows. Call it evolution, variations, etc... My point is, the "Supernatural" is inherent in observable nature, being eternal, knowledge without end - awesome and inspiring!

Your turn...

and of course, God bless!

Note: yes I agree with "TheEditor", wassup with that picture of yours? Update it already