Nye vs Ham - Rebuttals and Counter Rebuttals

I'm finally getting back to the Nye vs Ham debate.I've already covered preliminaries here and here as well as the opening arguments of Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Today I'm covering their five minute rebuttals and counter rebuttals. Again, you can watch the entire debate on YouTube here. As with other posts, I'll summarize the content and then make some remarks afterward.

Ken Ham

• Claims we cannot observe the age of the earth because that is historical science
• The Bible is the only source of historical science
• The age of the earth is determined by the six days of creation and adding up the genealogies
• We do observe decay, but when we use it to talk about the past that is a problem
• There are 3 assumptions with radiometric dating: That we know the starting number of parent atoms, that all daughter atoms come from parent atoms, and that the rate of decay has been constant
• Some Christians do believe in an old earth and they're still saved because that is through faith in Jesus and not in the age of the earth, but there is a problem because they are not consistent with the Bible.
• Problems: Death before the fall, carnivores before the flood, brain tumors and thorns in the fossil record before the fall would have been.
• There is one infallible dating method: the Word of God from someone who was there.

I find it strange that Ham would try to make a claim that we cannot observe the age of the earth and yet when answering the question,"Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?", he answers 'yes'. It seems like his creation model has no room for any modern science based on observation. I suppose this means he reject modern science wholesale, yet in other places he affirms science for other purposes of gaining knowledge. It is an interesting and bold move to deny that we can know the age of something based on observation. I also think he makes similar bold claims about radioactive decay. Essentially he denies constant rates of decay and must assert that God created with the appearance of age (which I think makes God deceptive).

I was glad to hear him include other Christians that don't share his view in some capacity, but am troubled by his assertion that we are not consistent with our treatment of the Bible. That is a pretty bold claim that he left untouched and is well beyond the capability and knowledge of Nye to address in this debate. He did bring up some very legitimate problems that need to be dealt with soon thereafter, such as death before the fall, carnivores, thorns, etc. I'll write a post in the future addressing the death issue in particular.
 
Bill Nye

• He asks: Are fish sinners? Why do they die?
• He wonders why Ham keeps asserting that we cannot observe the past. That is all that happens in astronomy and we actually do this all of the time. The speed of light and sound requires that we see and observe things in every day life that have already happened in the past.
• You cannot separate the natural laws of the present from the past. How are they different?
• Gives a telephone analogy about the Bible being an unreliable record
• If we accept the American English bible as interpreted by Ham as more respected than what can be observed in your backyard, that is very troubling.

I found some of Nye's comments naive and condescending such as asking if fish were sinners.The telephone analogy about the transmission and reliability of the Bible is ignorant to that field of study. We have incredibly accurate copies of original documents and the discovery of additional manuscripts in the past century as well as historical background information means that our access to an accurate translation in our own language hasn't been this good since the earlier centuries of the church (in my opinion).

As for his assertions about being able to observe the age of the earth and the past, he makes good points. This distinction of historical science is unique to Ham and claiming that it simply has to be that way is not a scientific claim, it is a faith claim that denies consistency with reality. The separation of the past and present natural law is a huge problem. Not all YEC people do this, but Ham, apparently, does.

Ken Ham

• We do have constant natural laws and they only fit in a worldview with a Law Giver
• There are other Phd's in Ham's camp, it's not just Ham
• God created 'kinds' not species so there were only 1,000 kinds on the ark
• We didn't see tree layers forming or ice layers forming so we can't use those
• Starlight gives problems for everyone which is why they have inflation theories, etc.

Most of this section seemed to me as though Ham was simply being evasive. He seems to contract himself from early in affirming that there are natural laws that have been constant. He tags on that natural law is only possible in a worldview where there is a Law Giver, ie: God. I think it would be more accurate to say that this worldview is compatible with consistent natural laws and provides explanatory force philosophically. Saying it is the only worldview where natural law is possible seems a bit off to me.

Saying that there were 1,000 'kinds' on the ark isn't much of a solution to Nye's challenge. Saying we didn't see the tree layers or ice layers forming and so they can't be used is bizarre. Saying that starlight gives problems for everyone is also evasive.

Bill Nye

• "Thank you Mr. Ham, but I am completely unsatisfied."
• If there were only 1,000 'kinds' on the ark, there would have to have been 40 new species created every single day since the flood in order for there to be the number of species we now have.
• The fundamental disagreement is about what you can actually prove.
• Have all relationships between animals changed only after the flood?
• What becomes of other religious people who don't accept your view?
• Ham claims to be a scientist, not a theologian? Nye asks for origins according to science and Ham gives be bible verses. His scientific theory of origins is based on the Old Testament.
• When scientists find that a model doesn't hold water they throw it away. Provide an explanation that changes the model or theory about the age of the earth, evolution, etc. and you will be applauded and praised for it by scientists.

 It was a spectacularly appropriate opening line, which is why I was sure to quote it accurately. The math about getting to the appropriate number of species from the ark until today is a staggering challenge to the question of the flood, which I'm not dealing with in this series. For now I'll say that there are many Christians who believe in a local flood instead of a global one. I've been agnostic on this issue for awhile and haven't studied it enough to have a firm opinion. The use of the term 'world' and 'earth' is much looser than it sounds to our modern English ears. When we consider that the Hebrew writers had no concept of a 'globe' at all (they thought the world was flat) it becomes easier to conceive of the story as a local flood in their known 'world' or 'earth' (I'm not even sure which Hebrew word it is...I told you I haven't studied enough to have a firm opinion.).

The fundamental disagreement is definitely about what is even possible to be proven scientifically. I do hold to the Bible as the primary authority, but we have to read it on its own terms and not ones we impose upon it. We also have to explain how it is consistent with reality, which YEC peeps need to do better than Ham's evasiveness in this rebuttal period of the debate. I don't think the Bible asserts an age of the earth either young or old. I don't think that is what Genesis is about and Ham's interpretation of these texts are not an adequate engagement to the question of their debate at all. Nye is right to point out what Ham is doing. Ham is doing theology, not science.