A portion of Jason Lisle's quote struck me as profound. He said that man "makes mistakes, has limited knowledge, can often misinterpret the evidence, is sometimes dishonest." His quote was supporting creationism, but my point is, he is also a man. Could he be making a mistake and misinterpreting evidence?
As adults, we prematurely "decide" what we believe. We adopt beliefs from our upbringing, alter them a bit so they feel like our own, then spend the rest of our lives collecting two mounds of data: one that reinforces what we believe and one that discredits opposing views.
When we "know" what we believe, we are not interested in the validity of the other side. We won't admit that the other side may know something that we don't. We dig our heels in and defend our truth, instead of critically shining the opposing light onto our own beliefs.
What is so frightening about examining the other viewpoint; one just as heavy with evidence, disproof and agenda as our own? Would it take too much energy to sift through the loaded data and skewed "facts"? Would it be so traumatic to learn we had been "wrong"?
Ken Ham feels that understanding creationism is the key to ending racism. I have a better idea. What if we started learning about beliefs opposing our own? Not with a critical eye, looking to discredit and find holes, but with an acceptance that "truths" we've held for years may not hold up in the light of the opposing view.