OK, so I bailed on Octopress

A few months back I tried a great blog migration - moving from Wordpress to Octopress, a Ruby-based static site generator. Octopress had the virtue of being static, of having posts in Markdown files instead of HTML in a database, and of generally being slimmer than Wordpress.

What I found after a few months of use is that the friction to use Octopress was just higher than I was willing to accept:

  • Write post content.
  • rake generate new_post
  • Paste in the new post.
  • rake generate
  • rake preview - make sure the post looks OK
  • svn add the new post file + new static files
  • svn commit to push them up to the server
  • log in to my webserver
  • svn update

All that for a single post. And if I wanted to post from a different machine, I had to remember to do an svn update first to make sure I was current everywhere. It wasn’t a fatal issue, but just more of a pain than I had anticipated.

Wordpress also allows nice things like posting from other apps, from my phone, etc. Not that I do much of that at the moment… but my intentions are good.

So my apologies to the half-dozen of you who subscribe to my RSS feed and saw it burp a dozen old posts last night. I got everything moved back into Wordpress and I think things are good to go.

The one thing I actually will miss is the ability to write my posts in Markdown. I know there’s a WP Markdown plugin but I’m not real thrilled with it. Oh well, I can manage HTML.

Practical Worship Leading Ideas

Yesterday I wrote a response to a post wherein someone else argued that church praise bands, by virtue of the type of music they play, speak a special language and have become a worship intermediary for the congregation. I disagreed to an extent, but promised some thoughts on principles for leading worship that can make participatory congregational worship more effective. Here are those thoughts:

Planning

On the planning side we need to carefully consider what new songs we bring into our congregational repertoire. We need new songs. We may find songs that play on Christian radio that are good choices; we will also find plenty there that are not. We will undoubtedly get requests from church members (and leaders!) to sing their new favorite radio song on some Sunday. This may times turn up good new songs; however, it may also be an area where we need to graciously exercise leadership and say no. If a song seems a little bit too simple and too easy for your highly-talented praise band, it’s probably just about right for your congregation.

We also need to be careful about the rate at which we introduce new songs. Back when I was leading on a weekly basis, when it was time to introduce a new song we would sing the song two weeks in a row, skip a week, and sing it again the fourth week before then adding it to our regular repertoire list. I would alsobe sure that every other song we sang those four weeks was a familiar song.

These two suggestions actually complement each other pretty well: if you’re more choosy about what songs you want to add to your repertoire, you won’t feel such pressure to add new songs at an uncomfortable frequency. And you can still manage to work in at least 10 new songs a year, which isn’t bad.

Execution

Lots has already been written on this topic, so I’m unlikely to say anything very new or novel. I love my church’s approach of having a large number of vocalists on the stage; it takes the pressure and focus off of any one or two people being soloists and lets us sing as a mini-congregation right there in the band.

Modern popular praise bands have developed an environment that resembles a rock concert more than a congregational time of worship, and the temptation is there to roll that right into our Sunday mornings. (I’ll leave only one example here.) The issue isn’t that they like to play rock music and that there’s a crowd that enjoys it. The issue is that we often, consciously or not, take it as a model for how our Sunday morning worship should look and sound. And that can be a problem.

If, during congregational worship, the focus frequently gets shifted to a gifted soloist, or a kickin’ guitar solo, or some novel and funky instrumentation, it’s a distraction. We’ve verged into concert territory and turned our congregation into an audience for the band instead of regular participants in worship. (There’s still room for ‘special music’, though. I’ll get to that.)

Really Leading

The other key thing we can do as leaders during the service requires a focus on that word: leading. One of the nicest things a person ever said to me after I led music in a service was that they felt like I had really led them; that there was no uncertainty about what was coming next, or what they were supposed to be doing; they were able to just comfortably settle into worship.

Here’s where we can be very practical in our leadership. If we’re introducing a new song, we should say so up front. If a band member is going to sing the first verse solo to allow everyone else to learn the tune, cue the congregation to that fact so they don’t feel the uncertainty of wondering when they’re expected to sing.

There’s still room for “special music” if that’s a regular part of your worship tradition, but set it apart in the service in a way that it’s clear what the intent is. By saying “Julie has a song to share with us now, so please have a seat and listen to the message of this song”, we can prepare our congregation to receive the song far better than if we just have the soloist start singing as if the song were just another part of the worship set.

Physical and verbal cues during songs are important ways to lead, too. Especially in songs where there may be more time between verses - provide clear cues to the congregation as to when to come in. Maybe just call out the first few words of the next line. (The person running your lyrics on the projector will appreciate this, too!)

Wrapping Up

Leading worship is an art as much as a science, but if we can approach it humbly and pastorally we will always be finding ways where we can improve as leaders, with the result being more appealing and engaging worship services. It should never be about us; it should always be about Him.

Do Praise Bands speak a Secret Language?

Yesterday I ran across a recent post from Lutheran pastor Erik Parker provocatively titled “Praise Bands are the new Medieval Priests”. In it Rev. Parker says that praise bands are alienating him from worship.

I just can’t access Praise music anymore, I don’t hear Praise songs as the music of worship. I find myself wondering why I am just standing there, in the midst of a group of people who are also not singing. As the Praise band performs song after song, I am consistently lost as to how the music goes, what verses will come next, how to follow the melody, when to start and stop singing, or when a random guitar solo will be thrown in right when I thought I had figured out when the next verse starts.

Parker recounts a recent church service where he observed that even as the very talented praise band was playing beautiful music, the people in the pews were, for the most part, “not really being a part of the music at all”, but rather just bystanders, “being played at, rather than played with”.

Parker draws the analogy that modern praise bands are the new medieval priests - leading worship in a ’language’ that few speak or can participate in. As such, he claims, “Praise Bands are incompatible with a worship that is done by the community… they are a performative medium, not a participatory one.”

I posted a link to the piece on Facebook last night and got an interesting mix of responses. A friend who has recently been looking for a new church noted that being directed to raise her hands to a song she has never even heard before makes her feel like a bystander rather than a participant in worship.

Another friend who grew up on the mission field in Africa said that music in small African churches that can’t afford a sound system is much more participative than in those that can. As he notes: “human nature being what it is, everyone turns it [the volume] up.”

What Language is that, again?

Full disclosure: I’m a member of a praise band. I have spent nearly all of my adult life either leading or playing in praise bands on a regular basis. So I clearly am unlikely to agree with the full premise of Rev. Parker’s post. However, I think he has identified some concerning symptoms, even if he has perhaps misidentified the true problem.

I share Rev. Parker’s concerns about planning congregational music that is regularly unfamiliar and difficult to sing. I have been a part of rehearsals where a team of professional-caliber musicians have had to work for a solid hour to get one new song learned to the point where we can sing and play it consistently. I have on more than one occasion wondered out loud how the congregation had any chance of singing the song on their one time through it if it took the band an hour to figure it out.

Don’t get me wrong - it’s imperative that we continue to teach our congregations new songs. But when our primary musical influence is Top 40 Christian radio, the songs we’re pushed to select are often difficult songs to sing, often requiring an unnaturally large vocal range and designed for professional vocalists. That concerns me.

A similar issue often exists with song familiarity. If my own experience is representative at all, our ‘best’ worship times come when we sing familiar songs. Familiarity allows us to think less about learning the words, melody, and arrangement, and think more about the message of the song. It’s no accident that a congregation stands mostly silent as the band leads a new song from the radio but then wholeheartedly belts out all four verses of a 200-year-old hymn.

It’s not (necessarily) about the band.

Where I think Rev. Parker gets it wrong is in pointing the finger at the Praise Band as the issue. The praise band is not the issue. Praise bands, playing in pretty much any style, can do music in a way that engages and draws in a congregation, or can do music in a way that pushes the congregation off to be ’the audience’ rather than ’the body’.

Rev. Parker makes a fair point that style can distract from real congregational worship. As he puts it, “rock bands are by design meant to overwhelm the audience with sound.” And I agree with him that overwhelming a congregation with sound isn’t conducive to congregational worship. But I’ve also attended services in Parker’s own denomination where more traditional instrumentation was used in a way and at a volume that still served to overwhelm the congregation. So it isn’t strictly about instrumentation or style.

However, there are planning and execution aspects that as worship leaders we can focus on to provide consistent inclusive congregational worship. Rather, though, than turning this into a two-thousand-word post, I think I’ll save those ideas for tomorrow.

Happening This Weekend

I was a bit excited back in November when I bought the tickets. And after living through a very long winter (which we hope is almost over), I’m more than a bit excited to be using the tickets this weekend.

The Healing of the Open Road

Maybe it’s just a reaction to still being in the tail end of 3 months of a cold winter back home, but give me a trip to Phoenix this week, a rental car with a sunroof, and a couple free afternoon hours, and I felt the road calling my name.

I’ve never been to Arizona before this week. It’s a far cry from the midwest that I’ve usually called home, but there’s a stark beauty to its dark, jagged mountains and sandy, scrubby terrain. The road lies out straight and flat for countless miles with little more than an occasional cactus breaking up the line to the peaks on the horizon.

So tonight, with two busy weeks of work travel almost behind me (home to Iowa tomorrow!) and a couple hours of sunlight, I turned the little SUV south, opened the windows and sunroof, and turned up the music. It took me a little while to get out of town and to roads less traveled, but eventually I turned off the main highway, crossed a cattle guard to turn onto a county road, and let my cares slowly filter out into the wind rushing past my window.

The music, both familiar (Bruce Hornsby) and new (Beck’s Morning Phase just came out today and is lovely) kept me company as the miles slipped behind. Prayers were spoken. Frustrations and hopes spilled out and were released to God. Little by little the beautiful broken emptiness of the desert reminded me of a greater hope, a hope that we all have for redemption.

Though 30 minutes of real traffic-free driving went by far too fast, there was also a certain cheerfulness to seeing the city lights signaling the return to civilization. Springtime is good for the soul, and my only regret from today is that I didn’t have the time to take a longer drive and see more. A friend advised that the two-hour drive through the hills up to Sedona is worthwhile. Next time I’ll have to see if I can get there.

The Lost World of Genesis One

Last week I finally got the chance to read The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John H. Walton. Dr. Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. His PhD is from the Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, which is, curiously enough (per Wikipedia), the primary seminary for training rabbis in Reform Judaism. All that to say the guy has a better-than-average understanding of the Old Testament, Jewish culture, and the Hebrew language.

Walton’s premise is one that, while previously unfamiliar to me, makes the most sense of how Genesis 1 - 2 should be understood as anything else I’ve read on the topic. The Lost World of Genesis One is structured around 20 premise statements, and in summary where he lands is this: we need to read and understand Genesis 1 in the same way the original audience read it. This turns out to be significantly different than we often hear it understood. As a very high-level summary, here’s what he says:

Ancient Cosmology is Functional

What does it mean for the universe to exist?, Walton asks. He proposes that people in the ancient world “believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.” In such a view, he says, something could be manufactured physically but still not “exist” if it has not become functional.

Walton compares the creation stories of several different ancient cultures and notes that in each case, the creation story suggests not the creation of physical elements, but in the god ordering and purposing those elements into a functioning world. Certainly it’s not a stretch to think that the Israelites would’ve understood their creation story similarly.

Divine Rest is in a Temple

What’s up with God resting? Day seven, says Walton, is the climax of the story. Key, he says is

the piece of information that everyone knew in the ancient world and to which most modern readers are totally oblivious: Deity rests in a temple, and only in a temple. This is what temples were built for. We might even say that this is what a temple is— a place for divine rest. Perhaps even more significant, in some texts the construction of a temple is associated with cosmic creation…

…in the ancient world rest is what results when a crisis has been resolved or when stability has been achieved , when things have “settled down.” Consequently normal routines can be established and enjoyed. For deity this means that the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken. This is more a matter of engagement without obstacles rather than disengagement without responsibilities.

The Seven days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins

Says Walton:

If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth. This is not a conclusion designed to accommodate science —it was drawn from an analysis and interpretation of the biblical text of Genesis in its ancient environment. The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth. If it were to turn out that the earth is young, so be it. But most people who seek to defend a young -earth view do so because they believe that the Bible obligates them to such a defense. I admire the fact that believers are willing to take unpopular positions and investigate all sorts of alternatives in an attempt to defend the reputation of the biblical text. But if the biblical text does not demand a young earth there would be little impetus or evidence to offer such a suggestion.

Empirical Science Cannot Speak to Purpose

“If public education is committed to the idea that science courses should reflect only empirical science, neither design nor metaphysical naturalism is acceptable because they both import conclusions about purpose into the discussion,” says Walton.

For those concerned with the purity of science, the focus on descriptive mechanisms in an empirical discipline will be welcomed, and considering legitimate weaknesses in the reigning paradigm should pose no problem since science always accepts critiques— that is how it develops and improves. For those concerned about the Bible and the integrity of their theology, the descriptive mechanisms that compose the evolutionary model need not be any more problematic for theology than the descriptive disciplines of meteorology or embryology. [This hearkens back to a point he made earlier in the book.] … If all parties were willing to agree to similar teleological neutrality in the classrooms dedicated to instruction in empirical science, the present conflict could move more easily toward resolution.

This is a conclusion that I find very liberating. It suggests that we can simultaneously affirm that God is the creator and origin of everything, and at the same time not be afraid of following science wherever it’s currently leading. Science can’t prove or disprove purpose or fundamental origins, and theology (in this view) need not lead us to dispute the current scientific understanding of origins.

The Lost World of Genesis One is a straightforward read, and I highly recommend it for any casual student of theology who wants a different perspective on understanding the creation account. The Kindle edition is currently less than six bucks, which is a pretty good deal.

A Valentine's Eve Win

Last night my wife and I went to see Jim Brickman in concert at the Paramount here in Cedar Rapids. This is the second time we’ve seen this age-defying (the guy is over 50 and looks about 30!) pianist perform, and I have just a few observations:

  • To my ear, he played three wrong notes the entire evening, all of them before intermission. (Impressive, given the ridiculous number of notes he plays)
  • Either his piano is waaaaay too bright or he plays everything too loud. His performance has very little sense of dynamics. Everything starts at a solid forte and ends up somewhere around fortissimo.
  • The guy never stops using the sustain pedal. He mentioned during the concert that he only took a few classical piano lessons, and that all he ever wanted to play was pop music. If he’d taken a few more classical lessons, a good teacher would’ve beat some better pedal technique into him. As it is, his sound is uber-muddy.
  • The dude has the most dramatic arm movements as he finishes a song of anybody I’ve ever seen play. Were I to try to do a parody, I think all I’d need is a few chord structures and those arm movements and I’d have it nailed. Might have to try it sometime.

OK, so I’m just a cranky pianist who shakes my head at the popular success of a guy like Brickman. It’s gotta be kinda weird to be able to say (as he did last night,) “this is the song that you’ll hear if you go to the kiosk at Target and push on my face”.

But hey, it was a nice night out, my wife was happy, and we both agreed at the end of the evening that we’ve probably heard enough of Jim Brickman for a while. I’ll call that a Valentine’s Eve win.

In Appreciation of Both Sides of the Creation Debate

One of the beautiful things about being slow to respond to the internet topic du jour is that sometimes other people come along and say what you want to say, only better and more concisely. So it is with me on the creation debate topic this week.

Yesterday I had 1500 words written on the topic. Then today I found two posts that sum up my thoughts better than I was able to. (Brevity, Chris. Learn brevity.)

First up, let me point you to Richard Beck, writing today about Creation Wars in Church. After noting that he once was removed from consideration for a tenured post at a “flagship school” of evangelicalism because of his interest in evolutionary psychology, Beck says this: “I get it. This is still a big issue in many places. But here’s the thing I’ve been pondering: Is this an issue in the local church?”

I ask because creation vs. evolution just isn’t an issue in my church. I go to church with people who have PhDs in biology and people who teach creationism in their home-school curriculum. The people at my church are all over the map on this issue. Some were with Ken Ham Tuesday night. And some were with Bill Nye.

And we all go to the same church.

How’s that possible? I’m not sure, but my best guess is this. We just don’t think it matters. We just don’t talk about it. You are free to think however you want to think about this. We don’t make it a test of fellowship. We recognize the diversity in our midst and have sort of collectively agreed to not make it an issue.

This makes me happy, both for Dr. Beck and because I think the same is largely true in my own church body. We all have opinions, but we as a matter of practice don’t make it a divisive issue. There are bigger things to be concerned with.

Which brings me to Michael Brendan Dougherty’s In Defense of Creationists. He manages to be both annoyingly condescending toward but lovingly appreciative of devoted Christian creationists all at once. It’s worth reading the whole piece, but let me quote a few of the good bits here in a way that can perhaps ameliorate the condescension:

In most times and most places, I have a load of sympathy and even admiration for six-day creationists, “young Earthers,” and fundamentalists. As the debate between Ham and Nye unfolded, I found myself more and more disgusted with some of the self-styled “sophisticated” Christians performing their giggles at Ham for all the world to see.

There was something just a little ugly about all these Christians rushing up to their platforms, drawing attention to the sweat on their brow, putting a concerned look upon their faces, and proclaiming that fundamentalism is a “modern” error. And then when they were sure everyone was listening, lifted up their eyes heavenward to pray, “God, I thank you that I am not like this mouth-breather Ken Ham.” With a great urgency, but very little understanding of cosmology or the various theories of evolution, they recited their absolute fidelity to these theories. These anxious-to-please Christians were telling important truths, but in the spirit of a lie.

Yep. This is exactly the attitude that my friend (and scientiest) Richard Okimoto decried to me on Twitter yesterday. (Richard: I hope this post doesn’t make you sad.)

More:

To submit to the authority of science does not mean to place one’s personal and irrevocable imprimatur on today’s most supported theories. It simply means accepting the rational process of investigating claims about nature through rigorous observation and experimentation….

On the other hand, I’ve always found those Christians who hold to six-day accounts of man’s origin difficult to refute and even more difficult to despise. There is a certain strength and flexibility to their tautology. Further, even though they’re wrong on the science, they are right about the things that really matter to the human heart and to human civilization.

And then he brings it home:

So I do not think that Ken Ham-style creationists should get to rewrite biology textbooks according to their very peculiar reading of Scripture. But I admire their bullheadedness. They … [are] trying to protect the big truths of Christianity: that God created the world, that we are dependent on him, that we owe him everything, and that he loves us even though we are sinful. In the world most of us inhabit, day to day, the world of lovers, wriggling kids, disease, war, and death, the sureness of God’s love is relevant in a way that the details of early hominid fossils never will be, glorious as they are. Have some perspective, people.

In protecting that big truth of creation — that we are all made in God’s image and all endowed with supreme dignity — fundamentalists zealously guard things that follow logically from that. Things like the commandment “Thou shall not murder.” … If Ken Ham is getting rich telling things he knows to be false, he’s a shameless fraud. But the bulk of creation’s fundamentalists are deeply sincere. And, better than that, they are willing to be, in St. Paul’s words “fools for Christ’s sake.” They do not live for the world’s esteem. And so when the world next discovers a sophisticated ideology to get around “Thou shall not murder,” I’d rather have one cussed fundie next to me than the whole army of eye-rolling Christians lining up to denounce him.

Amen and amen.

Is this fair? Honest? Kind and not patronizing? I hope so. If you’re reading this as a young-earth creationist and you’re miffed at what I’ve quoted, please accept my apologies. I don’t want to swipe, or sneer, or condescend. The nut that I get from both these posts is that, as Christians, we can agree to disagree on the age of the universe, and that there is noble, earnest desire to serve God and to love the truth of Scripture on both sides of the debate.

I want to be as passionate for the truth and unconcerned about what everyone else thinks as the YECs are, even if we disagree about the age of the rocks.

Notes from the Creation Debate

There was a well-publicized debate last night on this question: “is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era”? On the pro side was Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis; on the con side was Bill Nye, popular TV ‘science guy’. Hosted at Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky, the two men debated for two-and-a-half hours in front of a large audience, with a CNN reporter serving as moderator.

The debate format included short opening statements, 30 minute presentations from each man, a series of short rebuttals, and then questions from the audience. For those of you who can’t or don’t want to watch the whole thing, I’ll summarize the debate briefly and then share some thoughts.

Overview

Ham’s Initial Presentation

Ham, of course, espouses the Young Earth Creation (YEC) view. He explained that, in his view, the earth was created in six 24-hour days, and that the Biblical book of Genesis presents a historical record from the diving being who was present at creation. Ham distinguishes between “observational science”, which he defines as conclusions that we can derive using the scientific method of experimentation, from “historical science”, which he defines as drawing “scientific” conclusions about the past without having been there to observe it.

Ham claims that secular scientists, by using the same word for both “observational” and “historical” science, are muddying the waters; that they arbitrarily outlaw the supernatural, and as such are imposing a “religion of naturalism/atheism” on students.

Ham went to great lengths to show that Christians can be (and have been) good scientists, but that their science relates only to the “observational”, not the “historical” science.

Nye’s Initial Presentation

Nye framed the debate question a bit differently, making it about “Ken Ham’s creation model” rather than addressing the formal question. (Was it a carefully-calculated strategy? Maybe. More on that in my commentary later.)

Nye made several points about the scientific evidence he sees for evolution and for an old universe, and noted several places where a literal reading of the Genesis creation and flood accounts is, in his opinion, highly unreasonable based on what we have observed about the universe.

As one example, Nye noted that Ham asserts that there were only about 7000 “kinds” of creatures taken on the ark, but more than 15 million species identified today. If, per Ham’s model, those 7000 “kinds” developed (via micro-evolution, cross-breeding, etc) into the 15 million species over a period of only 4000 years, Nye said we’d expect to see 11 new species *every day* since then.

Points from Ham’s rebuttals

  • Ham was steadfast that reasoning backwards based on what we see now isn’t “science”.
  • He provided quick anecdotal evidence about conflicting radio-carbon dates.
  • He said that the only infallible dating method is “from someone who was there, who told us” that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Points from Nye’s rebuttals

  • Nye suggests that perhaps rock and tree layers slid to create odd dating stratum.
  • Says that it is troubling that Ham relies on the Bible, translated into English as the top authority on the natural laws.
  • If death was caused by sin, he asks, are fish sinners? If not, why do they die?
  • All we can do is look at the past. All study of astronomy is looking at the past.
  • He said there is no suggestion in the universe that natural laws have changed.
  • He asked why the Bible’s text should be more respected than what we see in the natural world?

Q&A From the Audience

  • Nye notes that “what was before the Big Bang?” is a great mystery
  • Ham says there’s a book that tells us. God created it.
  • Q to Ham: What evidence other than the Bible would point to creation? A: One human race, various “kinds” of animals.
  • Q: what, if anything, would ever change your mind? Ham: “I’m a Christian.” Starts from the premise that the Bible is God’s word, and that you can check its veracity. No one will ever convince me that the Bible isn’t true. Nye: scientific evidence would change my mind.
  • Q to Ham: if evidence did exist that the earth was older than 10k years, would you still believe in God, historical Jesus, Jesus Son of God? Ham: well, you can’t prove that. it’s an invalid hypothetical. If Christians believe in an old earth, they have a problem with the Bible. Nye: it’s Ham’s interpretation of the Bible vs. all scientific observation.
  • Q to Ham: can the Bible all be taken literally? Ham: what does ’literally’ mean? Take it ’naturally’, based on genre. He then defined all of Genesis as history. “If it’s really the word of God, there won’t be any contradictions.”

Thoughts on the debate

OK, so that was a long summary. Sorry. Now a few thoughts.

First on the debate itself: it was refreshing to see a debate that was even-handed and cordial. Compared to what we see most of the time in political debates today, this was a breath of fresh air.

Second: I wish they would’ve spent some time focusing on how they chose to define “science”. Ham’s view apparently refuses to make observations about the present and apply them to the past in ways that would contradict the YEC position. Nye pointed out in one rebuttal that Ham didn’t have an answer for polar ice that scientists interpret as being 680,000 years old, but Ham didn’t address the point at all.

Third: This debate would’ve been much more interesting and valuable for Christians if, instead of Mr. Nye, the Ham’s opponent had been, say, Francis Collins (head of the National Institutes of Health, a Christian who believes in an old earth and evolutionary processes). That would’ve framed the debate around young-earth vs. old-earth creation and the definition and use of science. By inviting Nye instead, Ham manages to frame the debate as a part of a greater Christianity vs. Atheism conflict, which I can only assume he hopes will rally the Christian troops and help bring more visitors to his financially-struggling Creation Museum.

Fourth: I doubt anybody really had their opinion changed by the debate. Your opinion of who “won” and “lost” is probably dependent on who you supported going in. Neither debater wanted to allow for any middle ground. As Jonathan Ryan pointed out over on Patheos both of them were determined to parrot their own position regardless of any “debate”. Frustrating.

Finally

I have some thoughts on the creation/evolution topic more generally, but seeing as I’m already past 1100 words I think I’ll save that for another post.