Ken Ham was able to give his presentation first, and he presented his belief honestly and sincerely. He believes, as do many creationist scientists, that science has two main branches: observational science and historical science. Observational science deals with observing of a phenomenon, hypothesizing a probable cause or effect of the observed phenomenon, and devising a set of experiments to reproduce the phenomenon in order to discover its cause/effects. Historical science works oppositely to observational science. Historical science observes the evidence left behind after the action that took place in the past. After carefully observing the evidence, the observer proposes multiple explanations for the past phenomenon. The hypothesis that most closely corresponds with the observed evidence is the hypothesis that is retained. However, if new evidence is brought to light, the accepted hypothesis is subject to change. Historical science is heavily influenced by bias because what one believes to be possible will change what hypotheses he will propose. If someone believes that ghosts exist, then the activity of ghosts will be included in his hypothesis if the evidence seems inexplicable by other means. Another researcher who does not believe in the supernatural will not propose the activity of ghosts because he does not believe that any phenomenon can be caused by such beings. This argument was the thrust of Ken Ham's entire presentation. He believes the historical sciences to be heavily influenced by bias because what one believes to be possible will influence what he proposes as possible hypotheses. From Ken Ham's point of view, creationism and evolution are both biases from which a scientist can form hypotheses about what has happened in the past. He shows the genius of several modern creationist scientists as proof. Scientists can have different views of origins but still be great scientists. Ken Ham is appealing to the scientific community to allow a different but valid theory of origins to be allowed scientific legitimacy.
Bill Nye, then, presents his case. His approach was completely opposed to Ken Ham's view. He does not believe that creationism is a valid theory of origins, and he states that the historical/observational science differentiation is only found in Ken Ham's theory of origins. He believes that science, as it has come to be today, can answer the questions of origins without an intelligent designer. He gave evidence of the rock layers (particularly in the Grand Canyon) that are several feet thick and would have required millions of years to form. This rock-layer formation does not fit into the creationist young earth model. Ice formations in the Antarctic are also declared to have been formed over millions of years. Again, this data does not fit the creationist model. Basically, Bill Nye's argument used the current methods of dating to disprove the young earth theory. He staunchly believes that Ken Ham's bias does not allow him to accept the fact that science has proven that the earth is billions of years old. In Bill Nye's opinion, people that believe in creationism cannot be good scientists because they cannot accept the plain truth about the formation of the universe. After such a declaration, Bill Nye proves the validity of his argument by describing the wondrous technology that scientists that believe in evolution have been able to create. Since evolution is supported by dating methods and by the vast testimony of science's production of new and exciting technologies, Bill Nye declared it to be the only valid origins theory.
This debate was considered a win by people on both sides of the argument, but I wanted to point out weaknesses on both sides of the argument. Let's start with Bill Nye.
This debate was considered a win by people on both sides of the argument, but I wanted to point out weaknesses on both sides of the argument. Let's start with Bill Nye.
- Bill Nye claimed that modern science does not differentiate between historical and observational science. However, most high school textbooks make this distinction.
- Bill Nye made arguments that he could not defend because he has a limited knowledge of the creationist viewpoint. One example would be comments he made regarding Biblical interpretation. Those who study the Bible would tell you that Ken Ham's description of Biblical interpretation, though brief, represents a very conservative and literal view of Scripture.
- Bill Nye did not listen well to Ken Ham's arguments. He made broad inferences about Ken Ham's arguments and made misguided applications. One example of Bill Nye's not listening well would be in the instance of Ken Ham's presentation of renown scientists that support the creationist viewpoint. Bill Nye made no attempt to answer this argument.
- Bill Nye did not give respect to those who believe in creationism. Although he may disagree, he did not have the place to try to make a mockery of those who do not believe as he does.
On to Ken Ham...
- Ken Ham tried to take on the whole view of creationism and Christianity all at once. He had too much information to present in too small a time. The technical and convincing parts of his argument were sometimes lost in the rapidity of the presentation.
- Ken Ham did not focus on defending creationism alone. Instead, he allowed a defense of Christianity to creep into his arguments. By doing this, he allowed Bill Nye to discount creationism because of its roots in Christianity. Because of the scientific community's revulsion with religion-bias, this defense put Ken Ham in a bad light.
- Ken Ham used his confidence in the veracity of Scripture to undermine his argument. He believes that the Bible is true, but such an argument cannot be used in such a debate because Bill Nye does not believe that the Bible is true. He will deny all arguments based on such an idea as religious bias.
- Ken Ham did not completely respect the views of Bill Nye. Yes, they disagree, but laughing while rebutting someone else's argument reflects badly upon your point of view.
This post was not designed to convince someone of either view, but I hope that a rehash of the basics will give you something to think about. In fact, the whole point of the debate was really to give people something to think about. My two bits: if you believe something, live your belief to its fullest, but you must be ready, for when you get to that place of total acceptance and application of your belief, you must be ready to pay its price.
