Bill Nye, Ken Ham, and how science works, part 2

In my last post, I talked about the recent debate between creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum and evolutionist Bill Nye “The Science Guy”. In that post, I noted that there has been a trend in recent years for scientists to avoid these kind of debates to avoid giving the creationist views any kind of false legitimacy. However, the fact that almost half of Americans believe that God created humans in our present form within the last 10,000 years means that this is a legitimate debate to have in many people’s minds, whether we like it or not.

But now, I want to look at the actual arguments made by Mr. Nye and Mr. Ham in their debate. The topic of the debate was, “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?” Which I believe was a good choice because it avoided the direct question of whether creationism or evolution is true, which probably would not be very productive.

For full disclosure, I reiterate that I am a Christian, and I also believe in evolution.I and many other people believe that Bill Nye won this debate–that is, he presented a better argument, whether or not the audience agreed with it. How did he do this? I think there are several points.

First, he backed up his argument. Bill Nye, of course, answered the debate topic by saying that no, creation is not a viable model of origins. He then explained the large body of evidence for a billions-of-years-old Earth that Young Earth Creation simply fails to account for. Ken Ham, on the other hand said that not only is creation a viable model of origins, but that it is the only viable model. However, he didn’t really back this up. He made a lot of points casting doubt on the scientific method, but very little that said why creation works and everything else doesn’t.

Second, Bill Nye had a more powerful counterargument to Ken Ham. He said that all it would take is a single (convincing) piece of evidence–like a fossilized rabbit in Precambrian rock–to overturn the entire evolutionary paradigm, and the billions of years, too. I say credible because Ken Ham did claim some evidence like this, such as this article, in which 40,000-year-old wood supposedly found in 30 million-year-old rock. The problem with this is that, yes, this would overturn our theories of the age of the Earth (or at least our dating methods) if it could be verified. I can only find mention of this evidence in creationist research. In order to be convincing, the dating would have to be independently verified by a mainstream laboratory, and other explanations would have to be ruled out. As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

And no, the scientists would not hide the results. If anyone could verify a claim like that, it would be the easiest Nobel Prize in history.

Ken Ham, on the other hand, never really addressed Bill Nye’s claims. His argument focused on the distinction between what he calls “historical science” and “observational science”. These are real terms, but Ham was using them to mean things they weren’t intended to mean.

Observational science is, in simplistic terms, the science of the present. When we look at how things are today or do experiments today and learn about the universe, and when we use this to develop new technology, this is observational science. Historical science is the science of the past. It involves looking at the evidence and figuring out what happened and what things were like in the past.

Ken Ham’s philosophy is that no one was actually there in the past to see what happened; therefore, we don’t know (scientifically) what happened for certain. Because we don’t know what happened for certain, we can’t trust anything that science says about it. Ham unabashedly begins with the assumption that the Genesis account of the Bible is literally true, and, therefore, anything that science says that contradicts that is wrong.

And here is a point where I think that Bill Nye actually missed a killer argument. A big part of Ken Ham’s argument was to point out what he considers to be unfounded assumptions of the evolutionist side. You’re assuming that erosion happened the same way in the past. Since we weren’t there to see it, we can’t be sure of that. You’re assuming that radioactive decay worked the same way in the past. You’re assuming that genetic variation happened at the same rate in the past. You’re assuming that the expansion of the universe and the speed of light were the same in the past.

Just once, I wanted to see Bill Nye answer, “Yes! That’s the point!”

Ken Ham has one fundamental assumption–that the Genesis account is literally true. I believe that science starts from a different fundamental assumption, even if it’s rarely stated: that the laws of nature worked the same way in the past as they do in the present. We assume that we can extrapolated the rate of the expansion of the universe backwards to say the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and we assume all those other things too because without them, Ken Ham is right. We can’t say anything about the past.

But this is how science works. We assume that the past worked the same as the present because that’s the only way we can do science. Deep inside the math, this principle is embedded in one of the most fundamental principles of physics: Conservation of Energy.

And this is why creationism is not good science and, at the very least, not a scientifically viable model of origins. It allows the rules in the past to change however they need to to get from Point A (God creating the universe in c. 4000 BC) to Point B (today, or at least generally agreed-upon history). That is not compatible with science, in my mind, and that is why, Christian though I am, I do not accept it as science.

Advertisements

About Alex R. Howe

I'm a full-time astrophysicist and a part-time science fiction writer.
This entry was posted in Religion, Science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Bill Nye, Ken Ham, and how science works, part 2

  1. Brandon says:

    I respectfully disagree particularly on two points you make:
    “Ham unabashedly begins with the assumption that the Genesis account of the Bible is literally true, and, therefore, anything that science says that contradicts that is wrong.”
    This is an inaccurate and therefore false statement.as you state Ken Ham has been clear that your Darwinian Historical Science interpretations that contradict the Biblical account are wrong.

    “And this is why creationism is not good science and, at the very least, not a scientifically viable model of origins. It allows the rules in the past to change however they need to to get from Point A (God creating the universe in c. 4000 BC) to Point B (today, or at least generally agreed-upon history).”
    A better way to state things imo is that science cannot prove that something outside of science did and does not happen. A designer God who made the universe through fiat would lie outside of science’s ability to study it yes… However, it is Darwinian evolutionists (macro) that change straight science even more. For instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ clearly shows that no one can point to any actual evidence of a change of one kind to another. Remember the finch argument. A bird becomes an adapted bird. This is not an example of Darwinian macro evolution. It is an example of micro evolution and can be verified in science.

    This brings me to a third point, which is, this demonstrates why Ken Ham’s argument that the biblical creation is the only viable model is a true or at least much more believable. Because people who want Darwin to be right have to create their own facts out of nothing. A biblical argument allows the scientist to not have to explain away God, by pretending a finch with one size beak changing into a finch with another sized beak is an example of macro evolution. A biblical minded scientists is actually more open to pursuing truth.

    I saw all of that in respect, because I know you to be a person of integrity.

    • Alex R. Howe says:

      “This is an inaccurate and therefore false statement…”
      I’m sorry, I don’t see the distinction. Mr. Ham may not have phrased his point this way, but I consider this to be an implicit assumption of his argument, although we may disagree on that.

      “science cannot prove that something outside of science did and does not happen”
      Technically, yes, we have no absolute scientific proof of anything that happened in the past. We have models of what happened, which may or may not be correct. To put my point a different way, creationism is a model of what happened in the past that is tailored to fit the observed data and the Genesis account, while evolution/old Earth/old universe is a model(s) of what happened in the past that is tailored to the observed data and the laws of physics as they are observed today, without regard to the Genesis account one way or the other. I do not consider creationism to be a scientific model because it is not falsifiable–Mr. Ham explicitly said there is nothing that would convince him he is wrong, while Mr. Nye said there were things that would convince him. Creationism could be true, but even if it is, I would argue the normal scientific method doesn’t work on it.

      “by pretending a finch with one size beak changing into a finch with another sized beak is an example of macro evolution.”
      Evolutionary science does not pretend this. It is clearly micro, and in fact I don’t believe we have any clear observed examples of macro evolution. However, this is not solely a problem for evolution. Mr. Ham stated that he believes 1,000-7,000 species on the ark diversified into all the land animal species in a relatively short time, which is even more macro than evolutionists believe. I think the issue is whether chance can bring about macro evolution as opposed to God (implicitly) doing it in the creationist case. I’m not a molecular biologist, so I can’t speak directly, but I’m generally willing to trust the people who are who say it can.

      • Brandon says:

        “Evolutionary science does not pretend this. It is clearly micro, and in fact I don’t believe we have any clear observed examples of macro evolution. However, this is not solely a problem for evolution. Mr. Ham stated that he believes 1,000-7,000 species on the ark diversified into all the land animal species in a relatively short time, which is even more macro than evolutionists believe.”
        Again this is not what Ken Ham said. “kind” not species. A kind is a dog vs. a cat similar to the ‘family’ classification. Also, Darwinian Evolutionists frequently do state that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ you’ll see several Darwinian Evolutionists state that as evidence for macro evolution. And when any student talks to me about this they always cite it as macro evolution…

        I just wanted to add it’s always nice discussing things with you even though we may not agree.

Comments are closed.