Bill Nye debates Ken Ham

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Creationist scientists)
m (Creationist scientists)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
After the official debate was announced, opposition to the wisdom of debating a creationist began to appear in the online secular community.<ref>[http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham] Richard Dawkins Foundation</ref><ref>[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/bill-nye-talks-about-his-upcoming-debate-with-ken-ham/ Bill Nye talks about his upcoming debate with Ken Ham] Why Evolution is True</ref>. [[Richard Dawkins]] has a policy of not debating creationists<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-explains-why-he-doesnt-debate-young-earth-creationists-107196/ Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Doesn't Debate Young Earth Creationists] The Christian Post</ref>, he states, "When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late [[Stephen Gould]] pointed out – they've won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability." [[Skeptic's Guide To The Universe]] member [[Rebecca Watson]] released a YouTube video<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDE0Hb3QeAY 5 Tips for Debating a Creationist like Ken Ham]</ref> entitled "5 Tips for Debating a Creationist like Ken Ham" where she essentially just repeated five times that you shouldn't debate creationists. <i>Slate</i> posted a rather harsh critique of the debate, lambasting Nye for having participated and further stating, "Rather than keeping creationism tucked away on the fringes of intelligent discourse where it belongs, Nye inadvertently lent his esteemed brand to one of the most despicable pseudoscientific cults in the United States."<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/02/ken_ham_bill_nye_debate_science_and_fact_versus_fiction_and_fantasy.html Science vs. Fiction] Slate.com</ref>
 
After the official debate was announced, opposition to the wisdom of debating a creationist began to appear in the online secular community.<ref>[http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham] Richard Dawkins Foundation</ref><ref>[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/bill-nye-talks-about-his-upcoming-debate-with-ken-ham/ Bill Nye talks about his upcoming debate with Ken Ham] Why Evolution is True</ref>. [[Richard Dawkins]] has a policy of not debating creationists<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-explains-why-he-doesnt-debate-young-earth-creationists-107196/ Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Doesn't Debate Young Earth Creationists] The Christian Post</ref>, he states, "When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late [[Stephen Gould]] pointed out – they've won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability." [[Skeptic's Guide To The Universe]] member [[Rebecca Watson]] released a YouTube video<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDE0Hb3QeAY 5 Tips for Debating a Creationist like Ken Ham]</ref> entitled "5 Tips for Debating a Creationist like Ken Ham" where she essentially just repeated five times that you shouldn't debate creationists. <i>Slate</i> posted a rather harsh critique of the debate, lambasting Nye for having participated and further stating, "Rather than keeping creationism tucked away on the fringes of intelligent discourse where it belongs, Nye inadvertently lent his esteemed brand to one of the most despicable pseudoscientific cults in the United States."<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/02/ken_ham_bill_nye_debate_science_and_fact_versus_fiction_and_fantasy.html Science vs. Fiction] Slate.com</ref>
 
==Creationist scientists==
 
==Creationist scientists==
Throughout the debate and particularly during the introductory arguments, Ken Ham shows video testimony from various scientists who believe in [[Young Earth creationism]]. He does this to lend legitimacy to the notion that creationists can be scientists and as further argued by Ham later in the debate, that [[creation science]] is actual science, when in mainstream science it has been thoroughly discredited as [[pseudoscientific]]. It is important to note that none of the scientists and engineers Ham presented actually were "creation scientists". They were all scientists in standard fields which happened to share a [[Young Earth creationist]] belief.
+
Throughout the debate and particularly during the introductory arguments, Ken Ham shows video testimony from various scientists who believe in [[Young Earth creationism]]. He does this to lend legitimacy to the notion that creationists can be scientists and as further argued by Ham later in the debate, that [[creation science]] is actual science, when in [[scientific consensus|mainstream science]] it has been thoroughly discredited as [[pseudoscientific]]. It is important to note that none of the scientists and engineers Ham presented actually were "creation scientists". They were all scientists in standard fields which happened to share a [[Young Earth creationist]] belief.
  
 
=="Observational" verses "historical" science==
 
=="Observational" verses "historical" science==

Revision as of 08:10, 4 April 2014

We weren't there for this postcard being made, therefore Goddidit
On February 4th 2014, famous science popularizer Bill Nye debated Young Earth creationist Ken Ham. The debate received a large amount of media hype, which was probably due to Bill Nye's popularity. The debate took place at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which Ken Ham founded, and was moderated by Tom Foreman of CNN. The audience was limited to 900 seats and tickets sold out two minutes after going online[1]. Reportedly, over 3 million people watched the online live streaming event[2].

Contents

A rivalry is born

I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that’s completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems.
—Bill Nye's Big Think video

Bill Nye made a Big Think video where he was unabashedly critical of creationism and evolution denial. He posted it to CNN's website where it received a lot of buzz and it subsequently reached over one million views on YouTube[3]. Ken Ham released his own video in response to Nye's[4] which was shot in a mimicking style, where he states that while Bill Nye has produced a lot of what Ham calls "observational science", Nye also has a hidden agenda to teach children to not believe in God. Ham continues, stating that believing in evolution is in direct opposition with a belief in God, that Bill Nye doesn't understand science, and attempts to separate science into "historical" and "observational" divisions. Sometime after these two opposing videos were made, the challenge for a formal debate was issued.

Opposition to the debate

After the official debate was announced, opposition to the wisdom of debating a creationist began to appear in the online secular community.[5][6]. Richard Dawkins has a policy of not debating creationists[7], he states, "When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late Stephen Gould pointed out – they've won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability." Skeptic's Guide To The Universe member Rebecca Watson released a YouTube video[8] entitled "5 Tips for Debating a Creationist like Ken Ham" where she essentially just repeated five times that you shouldn't debate creationists. Slate posted a rather harsh critique of the debate, lambasting Nye for having participated and further stating, "Rather than keeping creationism tucked away on the fringes of intelligent discourse where it belongs, Nye inadvertently lent his esteemed brand to one of the most despicable pseudoscientific cults in the United States."[9]

Creationist scientists

Throughout the debate and particularly during the introductory arguments, Ken Ham shows video testimony from various scientists who believe in Young Earth creationism. He does this to lend legitimacy to the notion that creationists can be scientists and as further argued by Ham later in the debate, that creation science is actual science, when in mainstream science it has been thoroughly discredited as pseudoscientific. It is important to note that none of the scientists and engineers Ham presented actually were "creation scientists". They were all scientists in standard fields which happened to share a Young Earth creationist belief.

"Observational" verses "historical" science

Throughout the debate, Ken Ham repeatedly attempts to redefine what exactly science is. In his opening statement, Ham declares that the word "science" has been hijacked by secularists. He continues on, dividing science into so-called "experimental or observational science" which is using the scientific method, observation, measurement, and experiment. With "origins or historical science" it is talking about the past, where we cannot directly observe, so therefore any scientist that makes a claim about past events is practicing this "sub domain" of science. Ken Ham states that this form of science is invalid, because "we weren't there".

Unfortunately for Ham, the dichotomy he attempts to make does not exist in science. Scientists base hypotheses about past events on evidential inference. Without past events and the subsequent data to draw from, actually doing any form of science would be impossible engage in. A large convergence of separate lines of evidence are required before a hypothesis can be taken seriously. An evolutionary biologist doesn't simply just posit Goddidit, as Ken Ham does about the origins of life on the planet, he/she draws evidence from the pool of collected data and attempts to form a model which best explains the evidence in question. Ironically, no where in Ham's creationism theory does he attempt to provide any evidence beyond "the Bible says so." His misguided bid at redefining science is essentially a veiled shifting of the burden of proof to make science as a whole unable to provide proof by making up a new definition of science which can provide us with technological wonders, but is impotent at evaluating historical events of any kind.

Ham's use of informal logical fallacies

A logical fallacy that Ken Ham repeatedly falls to is the false dilemma. He states that there are only two ways to view the origin of life, either the naturalistic Darwinian way or the Young Earth creationist way. Theistic evolution is not even under consideration. Early in the debate Ham states, "Now I admit that my starting point is that God is the ultimate authority. But if someone doesn't accept that then man has to be the ultimate authority." Again illustrating that in Ham's mind, there are only two options, that any sort of middle ground, or third option does not exist.

Another fallacy that Ham falls to is the argument from adverse consequences. Several times, Ham argues that this is a "battle of philosophical world-views" and presents the slippery slope argument that believing in naturalistic evolution leads to moral relativism, then to same-sex marriage and the decline of the sanctity of marriage, then to euthanasia and "killing our old people", then finally to abortion.

Ken Ham's predictions based on the Bible

Ken Ham's slide illustrating his Biblical predictions.

One challenge that is often leveled at creationists is that their beliefs do not make predictions as scientific theories do[10]. Ham saw to it that he countered this assumption by making set of anecdotal predictions based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Even after a small level of scrutiny, all of the predictions are either scientifically incorrect or are too loose of a definition to accurately define and falsify (as in the case of evidence confirming one race).

Evidence confirming an intelligence produced life

See main article: Intelligent design

Evidence confirming after their kind

See main article: Evolution

Here Ham elaborates that as a creationist, he agrees that different species can evolve and change within their own species "kind". But, there is an imaginary line where evolution stops and that "kinds" do not change into other "kinds". He goes on to define "kind" as synonymous with the family level of classification in taxonomy. However, in real-world biology, there exists no imaginary line in which evolution becomes no longer able to cross. If you go back far enough on the Tree of life you will eventually find a connection between all species. Ham asserts that there is a limit to evolutionary change a priori, because the Bible only mentions "kinds".

Ham also explains here, as a side note, that Noah's ark wouldn't need every species of animal, but merely every "kind" therefore reducing its implied load in the Great Flood. Nye capitalizes on this statement at the Q&A stage of the debate.

Evidence confirming a global flood

See main article: Global flood

The theme of the global Biblical flood is brought up by Nye in the debate, as proof of the implausibility of a historically literal reading of the Bible. He provides some of the geology of the Grand Canyon, he also asks "If this great flood drained through the Grand Canyon wouldn't there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent? How could we not have Grand Canyons everywhere if this water drained away in this extraordinary amount of time?" Continuing, Nye elaborates on fossil layers. Ham never challenges these points, he only attempts to defend the implausibility of Noah's Ark.

Evidence confirming one race

See main article: Race

Evidence confirming the Tower of Babel

See main article: Tower of Babel

Evidence confirming a young universe

See main article: Evidence against a recent creation

External links

Footnotes

  1. What You Missed While Not Watching the Bill Nye and Ken Ham Creation Debate Time.com
  2. Over 3 Million Tuned In Live for Historic Bill Nye and Ken Ham Evolution/Creation Debate Answers In Genesis
  3. "Don't teach your kids creationism", says Bill Nye
  4. Apparently, "humanist" is an ad hominem now
  5. Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham Richard Dawkins Foundation
  6. Bill Nye talks about his upcoming debate with Ken Ham Why Evolution is True
  7. Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Doesn't Debate Young Earth Creationists The Christian Post
  8. 5 Tips for Debating a Creationist like Ken Ham
  9. Science vs. Fiction Slate.com
  10. Why Creationism Isn't Science Patheos.com
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support