Ken Ham's Opening Argument

Before I even listened/watched this debate, I knew a few things about it based on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. I am also familiar with some of the Ken Ham and 'Answers in Genesis' material from their website. What bothered me the most was that Ken Ham appeared to have made the entire debate about the foundation of the Christian faith. He seems to think his position of Young Earth Creationism is the doctrine of Creation; the only one that truly holds to the inerrancy of Scripture, the authority of the Bible, etc. Actually witnessing his opening argument confirmed that he is operating under several assumptions and implicitly, if not explicitly,  misrepresenting his view as the Christian view to a watching world.

Here is a summary of what he said:

• "Creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era"
• We need to define the terms 'science' 'creationism' and 'evolution'
• "Biblical Creationism" = Young Earth Creationism. The earth is 6,000 years old
• Creationists and Naturalists have the same observational data: geology, radioactive decay, etc. The battle is over the interpretation of data due to differing worldviews or starting points.
• Kids aren't being taught to think critically
• The Bible's account gives predictions that can be tested: Intelligent life, each kind producing after its own kind, one human race, global flood, tower of babel, young universe.
• cites a recent University of California research claim that rejects a theory about simultaneous evolution of dogs from wolves.
• "Evolution" has been 'highjacked' to mean molecules to man instead of simply change over time. Ham affirms the later, but not the former.
• Molecules to man is in textbooks as evolution, but it is not observable science
• Naturalism is being taught in textbooks to children as a worldview, not simply evolution
• He cites a recent claim of some sort that bacteria growing on ecoli proving evolution, but the actual report discussed that the information was already there and simply switches on and off.
• He pulls out the fact that early evolutionary textbooks promoted Caucasians as the superior evolutionary race, but the genome project proved there is only one race, the human race.
• Claims we can't observe the age of the earth, its origins, or historical science
• Creation = 'literal' accounts of the Bible (which is how Jesus read it) including: No death before the fall (corruption), a catastrophic global flood, Confusion at the tower of babel, Christ redeemed us, and there will be a future consummation of a new heavens and new earth.
• Genesis is the foundation for a Christian's entire worldview.
• He claims that Genesis is the basis for positions on issues such as homosexuality, euthanasia, and abortion.

Ham's opening has staggering assertions, points I would agree with, and questions I simply don't have the scientific knowledge to address either way. First off, his overall claim that "Creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era" did not have sufficient support or examples. If he wants to claim it as the 'only' viable model and that it is 'confirmed' by observational science, he can't cite a few errors by an alternate view, make broad claims about his own, then assume the job is done. Aside from whether the Bible actually claims a global flood or a young universe in the first place, it is far from confirmed by observational science. By far most scientists whether Christian or not view the earth and stars and being billions of years old. Opinions on when humanity came into existence are certainly more diverse, but rocks and stars? Not so much. He claims we can't know the age of the earth from observational science. Really? I wanted to ask him whether or not we can know the age of Ken Ham based on observational science.

Ham runs into further mistakes in the way he uses the errors of some evolutionists. Just because a university rejects a certain view about the uprising of dog species does not disprove the overall construct of a common ancestor. His claim regarding one writer mistakenly claiming that 'bacteria starting to grow on ecoli is another thorn in the side of creationists' is simply proof that you don't need to be a Young Earth Creationist to glaze over the nuances of a text to make a rhetorical point. The most staggering part of his opening was when he brought out the racism found in early textbooks teaching evolution. While this is historically true, it is not held by evolutionists today and is far more likely to be a product of cultural assumption than scientific data in the first place. Furthermore, the citing of the human genome project disproving 'racism' scientifically is a huge mistake because the project itself has been the largest source of proof for humans having a common ancestor with other mammals since the data has been compiled (Did you know we have DNA for producing egg yolk? How does that contribute to us producing after our own kind?).

As I said before, the main thing that bothers me is not that Ham makes claims on behalf of himself, Answers in Genesis, or Young Earth Creationists at large. My problem is that he portrays himself as normative of Christians and the only legitimate interpreter of not only scientific data, but the Bible and Christian doctrine. I think he is wrong to make the exclusivity claims he does about science based on limited knowledge. I know he is wrong about his exclusivity claims about the Bible and doctrine based on being part of his faith community, training in biblical studies, and much research into this particular subject due to personal interest. The fact is that his particular position did not exist for much of Christian history and that there have been multiple interpretations of Genesis since well before Jesus even came on the scene. To that point, his claim that Genesis is the foundation of the Christian faith is problematic not only because he basically means 'his interpretation of Genesis', but also because the foundation of Christian faith is the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. That is a whole other issue, but clearly he is overstating his case.

Where I do find agreement with Ham is the issue of conflating Naturalism with Evolution. I did not go to public school or study in the sciences, but based on literature, interviews, and discussions with those in the field it does seem as though science class oversteps its bounds and, at times, starts teaching philosophy. Teaching and using methodological naturalism should be normative, but modern science is supposed to be answering What, Where, When, and How. When it attempts to make claims on Who or Why, it goes beyond its own scope. I have also found that scientists are painfully unaware of their own philosophical assumptions. A friend studying Bio-chem did not even have a class on philosophy of science until the masters level. This is troubling and frustrating and Ken Ham knows about it. But he does not talk about it in this way. He simply states that there are different worldviews that interfere with the interpretation of data. He makes a a big deal about the difference between historical and observational science, yet I wonder if he really means that Historical science = Origins. In my opinion, modern science cannot answer the question of origins whether you are a Naturalist or Creationist, which is why the debate question is problematic to begin with. We'll see where the debate goes from here.

Any thoughts?
What has your experience been in science class?

Opening statements of Nye vs Ham

In my opinion this debate stalled before it even began. 

I've been trying to figure out what the question the debate was addressing is actually getting at: 

"Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

I was wondering if it was trying to address the question of "why" or the question of "how". A friend of mine says it is asking "if". The confusion of this vague phrasing probably won't even get addressed well based on the opening statements of the two men.

Ham started by quoting the many scientists who protested the very occasion if this debate. (I don't recall him explaining that it was because it gives the appearance of validating Ham and the museum). Be then gives examples if creationists who are scientists. And says that it is important to define the terms "creation" "evolution" and "science". He brushed past the creation and evolution terms as basically meaning "God's special creation" and "existence due to naturalistic causes". Nye never disputed these in his opening statement. Ham then defines science broadly and attempts to separate "observational science"(what is repeatable" from "historical science" (events that happened in the past). Finally he pushes his view that this debate is really about 2 philosophical worldviews; 2 accounts of origins; 2 beliefs. He asserts that creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. 

Nye opened by saying what we have are 2 stories to which we must ask: "is it viable?" "Does it hold up?" He sees no distinction between observational science and historical science claiming that this distinction is unique to Ham and others in North America. He points to the multitude of religious communities worldwide (which includes Christians) who do not embrace a young earth view of origins. His concern is that creationism stunts America's scientific innovation, discovery, and progress. 

I had commented previously on an aquaintence's Facebook post that if we say the debate was about anything other than the answer to the debate question then we are missing the point of the debate. I stand corrected in a sense because so far neither seem to be focused on addressing the question. Nye seems to at least be closer than Ham because he is asking modern scientific questions, but seems to be ignorant of what faith communities are and what they actually believe about evolution, which is different than both Ham and himself. We'll see how the debate progresses from here, but to me this debate is a sham. It is not specific enough in its question or definitions from the outset which could have brought clarity and direction to the interactions rather than quibbling over basic terms of the question. In fact, there should have been a statement for one or the other to defend.  I suppose this was set up I become a spectacle from teh beginning. Publicity and some level of credibility for Ham and answers in genesis and a chance for Nye to make them look silly to everyone else. Based on the aftermath both were accomplished.