Not too long ago there was a highly publicized debate between creationist Ken Ham and evolutionist Bill Nye. This post begins my take on that debate. I am going to present an overview of the arguments discussed and give some input on their relative strengths.
Let me give the purpose statement for the contest: By CNN's Tom Foremen: "Is creation a viable model of origins in todays modern scientific era."
The two were each given a five minute segment for opening remarks. In the spirit of fair play a coin was tossed. The winner was Ken Ham and he elected to present first. I'm not going to detail everything he said, of course, but I will give some of them and my impressions.
Ham started with a few quotes, one of them notably from a scientist, engineer and inventor who is also a creationist.
He goes on to give a definition of the word 'science'. (From the Latin, 'to know'.) This word, he says has come to present usage in two different ways. One way is with what he calls 'observational science'. All hard scientific research in process today fall into this realm. The modern world and all the attendant technologies are the result this science, as well as our knowledge of astronomy, biology, DNA and medicine. The other is what he calls 'historical science'. This falls into the category of theory because no one was there to observe the events, as in the Big Bang and Evolution.
Modern media and textbooks use both terms interchangeably. They make no distinction between hard science and man-made theory. Ham believes the word 'science' has been hijacked by secularists who use it to indoctrinate kids into thinking that everything in our universe is the result of natural processes and presents man as simply an evolved animal.
What is the strength of opening quotes? Not very. A little below average to me. First, while it is good to quote scientists and inventors, they also tend to be a quirky lot. It would be easy for Nye to simply dismiss them as good engineers who know little or nothing about 'real' science.
What about his attempt to make a distinction between uses for the word 'science'? Again, not so good. He is on the fringes of science, and an attempt to re-work the terms can be easily countered. Nye does this with a single statement. I say this in spite of the fact that Ham brings up a valid point. But science for quite some time now has gone beyond the simple collection and classification of facts to development of theories about how everything works. My own opinion is that maybe there is a better, more effective way to bring out the differences.
And what about Bill Nye?
Nye begins with the Bow Tie story, which seems to be unrelated to his subsequent statements, but it is central to them.
He says that the story (of the Bow Tie) may be true, or it may not be. But we are all trying to get to the truth. If we were not watching the debate we might well be watching CSI, or one of its many permutations. What makes CSI important? They use evidence to find out what really happened. Science is science, the only place where a distinction is made between types of science is with Ham. Natural laws that applied in the past apply now. Scientists take the clues and extrapolate to find out the real story.
He goes on to mention the flood, (which he calls a 'remarkable view') and the Grand Canyon. The fossils there are found in layers, but there is not a single place where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils into another level. Not one tried to swim up to save itself.
Lastly he talks about our nation with its scientific and technological edge. He's concerned that the attempts by people like Ham to redefine science will make it more closed minded and reduce or eliminate our ability to innovate.
Are Nye's arguments any better than Ham's? Not really. He is a mainstream Evolutionist, so his go-to place is of course, the Grand Canyon. All those beautiful layers! It's obvious (to him anyway) that each layer represents a span of millions of years. That's why none of the fossils cross into other layers. They either died off, or evolved into the creatures found in the next one. This is their signature argument. Can it be countered? Yes.
It's clear from his reasoning he considers the Flood Story to be pure fiction, and the evidence he will present next will demonstrate that fact. And what about his 'technological edge' statement. A bit arrogant to me. After all, our country was founded more than a century before the theory of Evolution was proposed. We did quite well without it. We will also do quite well when the Theory of Evolution is relegated to the dust bin of history too.
Are his arguments that good? Not really. Only slightly better than Ham's
And now, I want to give my take on something that has nothing to do with the facts of the debate, Were I one of the contestants and won the toss, I would have let Nye go first. For two basic reasons. First, Bill Nye is my guest and it is common courtesy for him to precede me. Second, I have always thought that in any debate the better position was to speak last. Those arguments would be freshest in the audiences mind, and the later speaker might have the opportunity to counter something his predecessor said, as Nye did to Ham.
I would like to invite you to watch the debate. Here is the link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham
