Periodically, the intellectual conflict between science and religion comes to a head in the form of a debate and the results of such debates are often quite interesting and lead into areas of enlightenment that are surprising. Those who say scientists should not take part in such debates are fascists, morons and idiots.
I classify myself a lapsed-Catholic agnostic atheist (that is someone who fundamentally does not believe in god, but as a good scientist cannot prove or disprove his/her non-existence, it’s a very good form of rhetorical macramé), as such the debate between Bill Nye, the Science Guy and Ken Ham CEO of the Creation Museum piqued my interest.
At 2½ hours it is quite a long debate, but you need to go through it all to get a real flavour of the thing, the excerpts simply do not do it justice. As you would expect, neither side expected to win over their opponents, but this was a genuine debate for serious stakes, with the minds of children in classrooms at stake.
REVIEW (WARNING – SPOILERS)
In summary, although I felt both sides put their positions correctly, I felt that Ken Ham’s position as a creationist was laughably absurd to the point of being delusional. However, in the course of his debate, he made the following points which I thought were valid:
- The debate on creationism is be stifled by academic prejudice
- Many creationist scientists are afraid to express their viewpoints for fear of ridicule by the academic establishment
- The term “evolution” has been hijacked by atheists when Darwin’s interpretation of it would be far closer to Ken Ham’s
- Darwin was wrong about the hierarchy of humans as different varieties, with Caucasians at the top, we are the same species
- Ken Ham warned of the dangers of educational apartheid if creationist viewpoints were excluded from the mainstream
- In reference to Bill Nye’s arguments against creationist vegetarianism before “the fall” correctly illustrated several species that had sharp teeth, but were vegetarian (panda, etc.)
- Argued that we cannot know the sophistication of shipbuilding technology at the time of Noah as little evidence remains
- Pointed out that despite Bill Nye’s assertions to the contrary, the scientific community was actually very reluctant to overturn previous academic truths when faced with uncomfortable facts
However, there were various points where Ken Ham’s position was either simply untenable, ignored overwhelming scientific research or simply used selective data:
- Selective use of data in relation to the diversity of dogs which ignored evolution from other species in favour of “kind”
- Arbitrary distinction between “historical” and “observational” science
- Misrepresented (admittedly badly done science) regarding a single instance of radioactive dating in petrified trees at a magma intrusion and attempt to use this single example to undermine all such dating methods
- Fundamentally disagrees that radioactive decay rates are the same today as they were in the past, but does not say why
- Continuously refers to the authority of both the bible and his own creationist experts without providing any basis for why we should accept such authority. Bill Nye repeatedly raised this
- By definition, creationist views of pre-fall paradise (no change, no death, no sin) appear to contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! A point which Bill Nye parodies
- Dissembling at whether he believes the bible is a literal truth
- Came up with the classic piece of self-referential idiocy “It’s not the survival of the fittest, it’s the survival of those who survive!” – All of my What?
Not to pour scorn on Bill Nye, although he covered the science well, he missed several points to score a critical hit on Ken Ham and some of his arguments were poorly focussed. His main points which I felt were valid were:
- Non-existence of higher, more complex organisms in lower strata
- Post-flood dispersal of marsupials, specifically Kangaroos had left no fossil record evidence outside of Australia
- Arguments against the technical infeasibility of the Ark by Noah and family, given relatively recent history of shipbuilding
- Sheer logistics of 8 humans feeding between 2,000 and 7,000 animals for an expended period of time without replenishment
- Inability of creationist models to make predictions, versus the capability of evolutionary science’s ability to do so successfully
- How can “Fish be Sinners”?
- There is no scientific evidence of the flood at all. None. Period
- Numerous and varied scientific methods all point to the world being older than 6,000 year (expansion of the universe, radioactive decay, sedimentary deposition rates, sea-floor spreading, radioactive dating, etc.)
Bill Nye failed to make his position clear or was rambling on numerous points which could have won the debate:
- Illustration of sedimentary intrusion model was weak and inconclusive and could have occurred through other means such as turbulence from the flood
- Misrepresented or misunderstood Ken Ham’s position on “two of a kind”
- At various points he attacked religion generally, rather than creationism specifically
- Misrepresented or misunderstood Fred Hoyle’s viewpoint on the “Big Bang”
- Misrepresented in an idealistic way how scientists deal with uncomfortable facts which overturn prevailing scientific theory
I felt that Ken Ham fought a good debate, but his arguments were fatally weakened by his refusal to acknowledge any argument or scientific data which conflicted with his creationist dogma. He appeared a genuine and decent guy with good presentation skills, but one who is living in a carefully constructed fantasy world that, like a house of cards could collapse around him at any moment and it was only the sheer exercise of will that prevented this.
Meanwhile, Bill Nye was Bill Nye the Science Guy.