Friday, February 7, 2014

Ken Ham-Bill Nye Debate: Response to Ken Ham

  On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, the biggest Creation/Evolution debate in the last several decades if not the last 100 years since the Scopes Trial took place. Never before had two very well established public names gone head to head like this. All other debates had high level scientists debating high level scientists but they weren't so well known like Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis. So I will take apart the debate point by point to discuss the strengths and weaknesses in Ken Ham's presentation. Then I will do another post (or two) on Bill Nye's presentation. Then I will do one on the two rebuttals for both. And then I will do yet another one on the Q/A. Just to keep this relatively bite sized. The debate topic is "Can Creationism be a viable model for origins in today's scientific world?" So brace yourself. It was a long debate and I've got a LOT to say.

  Ken Ham's 5 Minute Opening Statement

    Ken Ham won the coin toss and opted to go first. I personally think this was a mistake because while going first in a debate, you can get the tone laid out, in going second, you get the last word and you have the opportunity to address points the opponent may make in your statements. In breaching the topic, Ken made the argument that the debate was not about science but about worldviews. He did so by pointing out several major scientific discoveries by both Young-Earth Bible believers and by Evolution-believers. This was a good move because he showed that observational science and technology development is readily done by both sides of the issue without problems.

    Ken then addressed the key distinction between observational science and historical science. The distinction is critical to make, but Ken could have used an extra few seconds to illustrate exactly what the difference is. In historical science, you can take an initial setting, apply a few laws of science, and come up with an expected result. That is forensic science in a nutshell. The Mythbusters are great at this. But this can only demonstrate it can happen. It does not 'prove' that it did happen. You need a historical record or historical account for that. Ken could have used this to demonstrate what he means by historical science and avoided allowing Bill Nye to remain flustered about what it was. But Ken has another issue here in that he seemed to give the impression that historical science was invalid. I don't think it was intentional but I can see where someone would get that impression. That historical science is invalid is not true. It is valid, but when used correctly. It is not with Evolution.

   Ken argued that the terms 'science' and 'evolution' had been hijacked for secular purposes and this is true. Science is now being used to only refer be valid when you consider naturalism to be true. "Evolution" has several definitions and as Ken correctly pointed out, textbooks start out with one definition and suddenly start talking about another. It is bait-and-switch along with Equivocation Fallacies. Ken was right to clearly identify what definitions he was using so this confusion would not be there. He concluded that the debate was about worldviews and that Biblical Creation is the only one that observational science agrees with.

Ken Ham's 30 Minute Case 

   Now the fun begins. Ken Ham opened his 30 minute case by addressing more science performed by Bible-believing Creationists, some of whom have indicated there is nothing scientifically that puts the Biblical account into question. It's a good move. It addresses the issue that those who believe in Creation can and do perform very solid science. Ken's big point was that the debate is not "science vs religion" but "worldview vs worldview". He delved deep into what historical science and observational science looked like and even pointed out that many public school textbooks, namely in Geology, clearly recognize the difference between observational and historical science. The difference is critical, but Ken should have added just a little more that you need historical documentation to show a historical event to be true. A big point that was added from one of the scientists Ken brought up was that many scientists in every field including biology are sympathetic to the creationist position but are afraid to speak of it due to media and boss outlashing. This is a very valid point. The extreme majority of scientific papers and work have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of origins. But the moment any scientific discovery has an implication on putting the Evolutionary theory in doubt, it is attacked HARD. Bill Nye suggested that science loves change or contrary evidence but he's grown up with a mindset where anything that questions what is believed to be science is thrown out as whacky. Ken could have dwelt on this one longer but that would have been a tangent not worth following for the purpose of the debate.

   Ken makes an excellent question for Bill and asks him where the Laws of Logic came from, where the Laws of Nature came from. He does not say that Evolution could not use them. But he asks how a naturalistic worldview where only natural causes can be considered without supernatural intervention can account for logic and the consistency of the laws of nature. How did they come about? Why are we able to rely and depend upon the scientific laws we have discovered? He then asks Bill to name a single piece of technology that could have only come about from an Evolutionary/Naturalistic perspective. This is solid stuff because he is forcing Bill to consider things that cannot be explained by science but can only be addressed by one's worldview.

   The issue of evidence was well addressed. There is not more evidence for one side or the other. Both sides are looking at the same evidence. I completely agree. Evidence does not speak. It does not have an opinion and it does not take sides. It is the person's opinion of the evidence that does this. When someone says "the evidence says x" they are committed the Fallacy of Reificiation. Ken understands this.

   Ken then moves on to suggest that if the Bible is a historical document, you should be able to test and observe things that would be expected from such accounts. And he lists things like Intelligence, life reproducing after its kinds, results of the Flood, results of the Language dispersion, and the claims that all of mankind is one human race. Ken emphasized on reproduction after kinds and one human race.
   On kinds, Ken argued that a "kind" is close to the modern classification system of "family" and that all observations are that everything that was from these 'kinds' gave rise to the variations we see today. And this is what we see. Secular science has shown that all dogs have come from one type of dog. They have a different time frame but their model matches what we expect from the Biblical account. An argument is always brought up that says "what is the limit that keeps us from being able to go back". My response is, show us the ability that it could when all observation suggests otherwise.
   Ken from here suggests that even the word "Evolution" which literally means "change over time" has been hijacked via a bait and switch. I call this using the Fallacy of Equivocation, where you change the definition of a word used in the same context. If evolution means "change over time" it cannot ALSO mean "a model of origins where all life comes from a single common ancestor" in the same context. Because one is simply not the same as the other. It would be no different than saying a "day" is a 24-hour period AND a "period or era of time" in the same context. "Day" does have these two meanings, but the context makes them different.
   Ken also makes an interesting observation how the "Tree of Life" for Evolution is considered fact but the "Orchard" for Creation is religion. The "Orchard" for Creation is the exact same as the tree for evolution. We just don't connect all the branches to one big tree.
   Then Ken addressed the races and how all humans genetically trace back to one race. In fact it goes deeper than that. All of mankind traces back to four primary gene pools. Who were these four people or four families? Look at Noah's Flood. Who was on the Ark? Noah and wife along with their three sons. Then Shem, Ham, and Japeth each had their wives. Noah's and their sons would represent one gene pool and the sons' wives would represent the other three. It makes perfect sense.

   Ken from there gave a brief presentation of the Gospel and why the Creation account is so foundational to Biblical doctrine. And wrapped up by emphasizing that the Creation account is the only origins model that is supported by observational science.

  On the presentation, Ken brought a pretty solid general case but I just felt there was a lack of a "nail in the coffin" or major left hook that would leave people with no reasonable doubt about the Creation account. I understand that no logic or reasoning we give will change minds. A person who can be reasoned into Christianity can also be reasoned out. I will mention this later, but Bill Nye was anticipating to see if there was any pure scientific prediction that could be made based on a Biblical worldview. And the best one I know of was Russel Humphrey's prediction of the planetary magnetic fields being dead-accurate. I think if Ken readily understood this, I can see why he wouldn't include this. Humphrey's has been involved with ICR and a number of other YEC projects and see Ken was making an effort to not mention any other scientist that was directly under his payroll except when referencing papers on the AiG site. I also would have liked to have seen how genetics trace back to 4 gene pools. That detail is significant. But Ken has so much he was trying to fit in at once it is hard to know what to include and what not to include.

   Overall, Ken stayed on topic, avoided major fallacies, especially ad hominum, or equivocation, and did not present anything that a fact check would prove false. But it wasn't, in my opinion, the strongest evidences he could have presented. I do understand however that some of the strongest evidences would take much longer to discuss. It was really good that Ken Ham did not focus on how Evolution was wrong, though he did point out a couple flaws including how to account for logic or the consistency of the laws of nature.It was a good presentation.

  My next post will address Bill Nye's 5 minute opening statement and his 30 minute case. That one could be longer because fact checking will play a big role.

 
   

1 comment: