Bill Nye's opening argument

After Ken Ham delivered his non-evidence based 30 minutes that he somehow thinks justifies his claim that " "Creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era," (which then puts the burden of proof on himself which is a horrible debate move) Bill Nye stepped up. This is a summary of Nye's points

• Back to the question at hand, does Ham's model actually hold up?
• Sea shell fossils created the rocks that the very building is built on. Millions of years of layers of ancient life.
• There is snow ice with 680,000 layers of annual cycles.
• A tree in sweden is over 9,000 years old. Even in California some are over 6,000 years old. Trees cannot survive under water.
• You never find a 'lower' water animal mixed with a 'higher' water animal in the fossil record.
• Points to the multiple types of skulls globally
• How did all of the animals from Australia come from the ark in the Middle East with no evidence of them anywhere except Australia?
• The math for Ham's model is preposterous based on a modest assessment of 16 million species today.

• Several examples of why the ark is problematic: not enough space for 14,008 creatures, wood twisting in water would cause massive leaking, healthy living conditions unattainable, not enough  food, etc.
• The Amphibious lung fish was predicted to be found in a particular place and it was: Tiktaalik
• The Ken Ham cannot make predictions and get results.
• Sexual reproduction in minnow fish combats infection and bacteria better than a-sexual reproduction
• Prediction of the Big bang 'ecco'. Built a cosmic observatory to hear it and found it as predicted.
• Elements of rubidium and strontium. Occurs in lava freezing allowing for the dating of fossils.
• Billions of stars further than 6,000 light years away.

Instead of reaching for red herrings like differing opinions on dog species, bacteria on ecoli, or points not held by the opposition, Nye goes straight for the evidence. He not only gives clearly laid out reasons why he rejects a young earth and support for an old earth, he also goes out of his way to give reasons why there could not have been a global flood. This was not even necessary and yet because he knows it is actually held by Ham he went for it. Ham would have been wise to use this tactic and directed his attention to any evidence he thinks actually supports his view or can hold a candle to Nye's view.

There were a few points that I am well acquainted with which were brought up by Nye such as the distance of the stars, the age of rocks by various dating methods, fossil layers, snow ice layers, tree rings, and the layering of species. For other parts he expanded my per-existing knowledge. I knew most of the arguments against the ark and a global flood, but had not heard about how problematic a wooden ship that large would be for leaking. I knew there were problems with species going global post flood,  but hadn't thought through that there ought to be evidence of their travel not to mention the exponential species growth in such a short amount of time. There were also a lot more types of skulls on his diagram than I recall seeing gathered on a page.

What was most devastating to Ham, however, was the way Nye was able to point out Young Earth Creationism's lack of predictive power. Nye could point to the prediction of the Big Bang echo and that amazing amphibious lung fish fossil swamp in Canada. Perhaps Ham will have some sort of retort that could save some face in the later portion of this debate, but his position of a young earth is currently crushed. However, does Nye think he has done more than he actually has? He ended the debate saying, "Is Ken Ham's creation model viable? I say no! Absolutely not!" Then he pleaded for the listener not to raise scientifically illiterate children who don't understand their place int he cosmos, who don't understand natural law.

My question is whether Bill Nye thinks this is the normative Creation model for Christians or if he is narrowing the debate question as simply Creation according to Ham/AnswersInGenesis. It appears as though it is the latter. Let's hope so. It is clear that Ken Ham is deluded enough to equate his position as the foundation of all Christian faith and seems to think Nye is part of an evil empire of Naturalists. Perhaps Bill Nye will turn out to display more patience and grace out of the two because there was a mere hint of Naturalism in his entire presentation. From what I saw it was all science and no naturalistic attack against faith. In fact, I don't recall him ever denying the possibility that God created through evolution. There was no mention of God, Jesus, etc. There was no need to because Ham took the burden of proof. All Nye had to do was show that the earth was old and that Ham's claim was untenable.

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?

Nye vs Ham

Last night there was a debate that has sparked far more media attention than I thought it would. This is not a joke. Bill Nye (the science guy) debated Ken Ham (of 'Answers in Genesis') on the following question:

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

Based on what I have read or seen of their previous work I don't hold to either of their positions and will likely find points of agreement on both sides. I read a few blogs of varying perspectives and opinions about the debate leading up to it, but have not yet watched it. I plan to do so over the next few days and write my thoughts. I will probably do this over several posts as I am aware there are many subjects and issues to address and I will likely have to watch the debate in sections due to its length. Here it is in full: