Why did this debate take place?
As I previously stated on my blog, both men had a message they wanted to get across to their target audience in order to work towards their respective goals. Bottom line up front (BLUF): both men succeeded. Nye's message was that science is a beautiful and exciting field to study. That we need young people to embrace future challenges and produce solutions with science. His target audience was Christians, voters in particular, who might be on the fence on the evolution topic. Ham had three target audiences with differing goals for each: young earth creationists--encouraging them to be "comfortable with science", old earth or theistic evolutionists who are believers--encouraging them to trust the Bible over secular science, and lastly he targeted people "on the outside" (as Nye put it) and encouraging them to seek answers in the Bible. I strongly believe that Ham was at a strategic disadvantage because he had to appeal to Bible believing Christians that sided with Nye as well as his other targets. This forced him to spend less time dealing with science and more time on what the Bible actually says and why we trust it. . Now, I am not trying to say that it is wrong for believers to side with Bill Nye the "Humanist Guy" on this topic, but I am sure it must be a little disconcerting for those believers to oppose and ridicule the one preaching the gospel and support the one representing humanism.Obviously neither men were going to change the others mind on these issues. They were appealing to their target audiences and Ken Ham's target happened to be everyone.
What Ham did well:
- Within the first few minutes of the debate Ham completely refuted Nye's notion that creationists cannot do good science. Before and throughout the debate Nye claimed that creationism is dangerous to our nation's scientific future. Ham used several video clips of creationists who practice science in the secular world. The strongest perhaps was Dr. Raymond Damadian, the co-inventor of the MRI machine who very emphatically expressed his belief in a 6,000 year old universe. Strangely, even after testimony from Dr. Damadian and other creationist scientists, Nye still continued to claim that creationists cannot do good science work. I suppose this is because this was Nye's primary point in the debate. After refuting this claim, Ham chose not to readdress it again.
- A primary point of emphasis by Ham was to display, through describing historical vs observational science, that there is a belief aspect to Nye's evolutionary thinking. Ham said, "There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past. Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can't prove either way observationally, because all we've got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews."“There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99“There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99“There is a distinct difference in what you observe and what has taken place in the past,” said Ham. “Creationists and evolutionists disagree on how to interpret data regarding the origins of our universe, and we can’t prove either way observationally, because all we’ve got is the present. When it comes down to it, this is a battle over philosophical worldviews.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99 - Ham out-did Nye with his presentation slides and media. The bumbling, science denying idiot, as many refer to Ham, presented a very modern, hi-tech display of his position. Nye's was effective as well, but as Michael Schulson from the Daily Beast stated, "He spent 10 minutes delivering a dry lecture on geological sediments and biogeography, using the kind of PowerPoint slides that a high school junior might make for his AP Biology class. Ham, seemingly aware that debate is a form of entertainment, and that entertainment thrives on human stories, presented testimonial videos from engineers and biology PhDs who hold creationist views." Michael's article is very entertaining and I suggest you read it as well. He observed that the clearly smarter guy on stage was "oddly" the one claiming the earth is 6000 years old.
- In my mind, he who presents the gospel wins the debate every time. I know this is not true in many other people's minds, but allow me to summarize what Ham said after the debate. He said that nowhere is it stated that man's word will not return to him void, but it says that God's word will not return to Him void and that his gospel is the power of God unto salvation. As a Christian, I completely agree with him. Few wanted to hear a couple guys spout off scientific facts alone for 2 hours, anyway, so it was good that Ham presented the whole story.
- Ham had answers to Nye's wild curiosity over the origin of matter and the origin of human consciousness. Nye did a good job making his lack of answers sound exciting and romantic I believe people enjoy that type of attitude--to a degree. However, those two questions are loaded with repercussions: Why am I here? What is my purpose? Who/what am I? The two most memorable points in the debate came back-to-back after Nye had expressed his excited yet clueless wonder to these core questions. "Well, Bill, I have to tell you, there is a book out there, that does document where consciousness/matter came from." I believe evolution and atheism provide little to no hope to the human condition and reveals nothing to the purpose of life, and I thought Ham did a good job using subtle humor to contrast the two perspectives.
What Ham should have done better:
- Ken Ham's presentation had smatterings of scientific evidence of the bible being an accurate document. He explained how if the Bible were true, there are certain predictions that can be made and tested. He stated there should be evidence of a global flood, evidence of the Tower of Babel, one human race, and that creatures should produce after their own kind rather than produce new kinds. This type of information took up about 1% of his presentation time. Even after Nye challenged him to provide scientific evidence or predictions with his creation model, Ham did not oblige. Just 5 more minutes spent outlining a couple of the predictions and evidences he had listed on a slide he flashed occasionally, would have added significantly to his argument. He encouraged people to investigate and research the topics on the list for themselves--a great idea--but it seemed like he did not prepare to speak to any of the topics. This disappointed many creationists, myself included, and reinforced the skeptics perspective that "there is no scientific evidence for creation."
- At one point in the debate he tried to explain how a certain bacteria had not evolved a new metabolic capability as evolutionists claimed, but rather, already had the capability hardwired into their DNA. He stumbled over his words and seemed very uncomfortable speaking to the specifics of the study. I was not surprised by this as Ham typically leaves the science lectures and research to his PhD staff members and focuses more on the biblical aspects when he speaks to his typically Christian audience.
What Nye did well:
- Nye was very enthusiastic and did a good job of sounding open to new ideas creationists could provide evidence for. He stated that is we could give them just one fish that had managed to swim up from it's supposed sedimentary layer into another, evolution would fall apart and scientists would essentially throw him a parade out of gratitude for his amazing contribution. Ham should have obliged and presented him with the coelacanth and scheduled his parade. The coelacanth (pronounced SEEL-uh-kanth) was long believed to be the missing link between fish and land animals because of its fleshy fins and because it supposedly lived 410 million years ago. When I recently approached a living coelecanth off the coast of Africa for interview it declined to comment. The half leg half fins must have given the fish the ability to swim through all the layers. Contrary to what Nye said, evolution wouldn't fall apart with an out of order fossil or even thousands of out of order fossils. Evolution is not good science since it cannot be disproved. This is because the "theory" just rolls with the punches, saying, "Wow, who knew! Apparently this fossil had nothing to do with the origin of land dwellers." Or, "Wow, it is incredible that these fish have survived unchanged for millions of years in this tiny little colony while the rest of them sprouted legs and walked off." You see, Nye knew that whatever Ham threw his way, he could explain away. The evolution model requires belief and creativity in far greater quantity than evidence.
- Nye used a very good debate tactic in that he steam-rolled Ham. When one can quickly provide numerous objections, each of which requiring a long drawn out response, you will not get a response. He did this with numerous topics such as tree ages, distant starlight, and ice cores. These are issues that require long, technical papers to properly discuss. Some may view this tactic as cheap, but I don't believe it had any malicious intent behind it. He was merely naming off data as evidence of the universe being old. Ham should have done the same with young earth evidences such as the Grand Canyon, ocean salinity levels, the receding lunar orbit, planetary magnetic fields or any of the topics listed on his evidence slide.
- Nye did a good job pushing his agenda: more funding for science. I strongly support this goal as well. However, if Nye has it his way, there will be continued censorship of one side of the origins debate (obviously intelligent design is the censored side). This would not be good science, but state funded religious conquest. Luckily Ken Ham is right; we can disagree on matters of the past and still work together using science in the present.
- Nye did a good job of pointing out that Ham did not present good scientific evidence for a young earth.
What Nye did poorly:
- Perhaps this belongs in the category of what he did well: Nye did a good job of insulting the intelligence of Kentuckians. He basically said they preferred to have a cute little creation museum rather than a center for nuclear medicine. This claim was actually fact checked to be false anyway. He was already at odd with most people in the audience and he should not have alienated them more.
- I am still not sure on the point of his skull slide. He presented a slide with dozens of drawings of ape skulls and one that he claimed was human. He seemed to want the crowd of non-experts on skeletons to try to identify the human one. I believe his idea was to have people use their incredible human intellect to discover they were no different than animals. At least that non- experts would find that their heads are indistinguishable from apes on a screen 20-50 meters in distance. If Nye had an ape use his brain to pick out the human skull I would have been impressed.
- He was demeaning to Ham. Again, this may fall in the category of what he did well, depending on your perspective. In a debate that was very cordial and respectful, Nye's frequent "Ham's story, Ham's Flood" labeling of the biblical account was intentionally rude. He was not going to win points with those on Ham's side. He also kept referring to mainstream scientists as "those of us on the outside", an obvious attempt to make creationists sound like cultists. Though this is tame compared to the digs creationists are accustomed to receiving, I felt like they stuck out in this spirited by cordial debate.
- He did not do a good job of presenting the whole story about tiktaalik. He explained that based off the evolutionary model they made a prediction that they would find a fish growing legs in a certain rock layer. They found tiktaalik, a fish with boney, fleshy fins in the rock layer they searched. Nye did not mention that they have since found tracks laid down by land animals with fully formed toes "millions of years" before tiktaalik. This makes his claim invalid. Ham should have been prepared to call him out on this topic.
In
perhaps the most compelling moment of the debate, Nye and Ham were
confronted with the question. “How did consciousness come from matter?”
Nye replied bluntly with, “I don’t know. That is a great mystery.”
“Bill, I want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from,” Ham said, referring to the Bible, and adding that he believes man was created “in God’s image.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
Nye replied bluntly with, “I don’t know. That is a great mystery.”
“Bill, I want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from,” Ham said, referring to the Bible, and adding that he believes man was created “in God’s image.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/5-million-watched-online-creation-debate/#lSmRyIdHQvIsfTBd.99
Final Thoughts
Scientists should not try to censor or shun creationist ideas and contributions. Two conflicting models or view points when compared to each other can only help to refine them.Although I thought Ham did an ok job of presenting creation as a viable model of origins, judging by the responses I have heard, he must not have done a good job. Ham did however present the gospel message and as Mark Spence from the daily YouTube show "The Comfort Zone" put it, "It's sad to see that people (Christians) will try to argue point by point or evidence for evidence, forgetting about the gospel. And that the gospel is the power of God onto salvation."
Perhaps in the future we will see a more scientific debate between say Ian Juby and an evolutionist. However, it is highly unlikely that any debate in the near future will generate this much publicity and viewership. This was the creationist's golden ticket. Ham made some strong arguments and showed that the Bible has answers to all of the pressing questions in regards to origins and the human condition. However, diepite a few great moments and points by Ham, the idea that was reinforced for most of creation's skeptics was that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth. Now there were over 250,000 hits on the Answers in Genesis web site immediately following the debate, so perhaps those that were curious, took Ham's invitation to investigate the evidence for themselves. As For everyone else, I know I am even more determined to present them with evidence for creation and against evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment