Dissecting the Nye-Ham Debate

I'm going to state right away that there will be no quotes, no references, and no second-hand accounts of the debate. Here is a video of the entire debate. It is 2.5 hours long so sit down with your significant other and watch it. You will either bond or be divided over how you react. Either way your life will be better off and you won't be subjected to merely the portions of the video I wish you to be subjected to. Secondly, this debate was sort of boring, bordering on the line of dumb. Both sides made fundamental mistakes in their own defense as well as in understanding the opposition. This essay is to correct what was wrong, from the extreme category errors to the definitional differences. Thirdly, for as great of an entertainer as Bill Nye is you would think he would be better at getting his points across. Lastly, while I deny Ken Ham's worldview, I am thoroughly inclined to his line of thinking and rationality. In the end though, I really don't care much about which of these people is right. Does what I believe about this make a difference to what my next meal will be? No, so whatever.



Science and evolution DO have multiple meanings.
Li'l Wayne and Leonardo DaVinci are both artists. When I talk about how great DaVinci was at art, I must mean that Li'l Wayne does the same thing. Why else would I call them both artists?

Reiterating Ham's point, there is a difference between experimental science which we are capable of replicating time and time again in certain conditions and historical science, or the study of how what is in the present came to be from the past. Li'l Wayne is able to cause chemical  burns, precisely cut though rocks, and create temperatures approaching 0 degrees Kelvin. (He can also do this with things other than his voice.) DaVinci looks at what Li'l Wayne is doing in the present and says, "The outcome of Wayne's experiments result in certain markers left behind. With enough educated guesses, I could give a probable explanation of how all of this stuff around me came to be!"

In a similar light, there are two kinds of evolution; micro-evolution, which virtually no one anywhere will deny, and macro-evolution, which is both much more difficult to convince people of and much more difficult to support. Micro-evolution can be observed over several generations; breeding certain animals, plants, etc. together will result in offspring with desirable attributes from each parent. In a matter of days it is possible to create hundreds of iterations of different bacteria using micro-evolution techniques to create a breed with desired attributes. Macro-evolution, to my knowledge, has never been observed in the world except through theories regarding the fossil record. There is no lizard-keeper who has started with two lizards and managed to produce a bird over the generations.

This is a clear and simple definitional error when people use the term "science" or the term "evolution" with one sense in mind. And we don't just have Li'l Wayne and DaVinci; there are Slipknots, Picassos, Emily Dickinsons, Tolkiens, Springsteins, etc. The only way to prevent confusion in debates is to be clear about what you are actually debating. Not all white people are the same; not all religious people are the same; not all Koreans are the same. Know what you're debating and stay within that realm or else any constructive progress you try to make will fail.


This is not a debate on religion.
While it is true that the YEC viewpoint arose from fundamental Christians, Christianity is not part of this debate. This entire debate is based on the physical explanations explained in the Bible. The existence and nature of God are not the things being debated; the life of Christ is not being debated; what is morally right and wrong is not being debated; who is saved and damned is not being debated.

The question at the center of the debate should have been, "What merit does Young-Earth Creationism have in regards to modern observations regarding the age of the universe?" Except for pagans and Scientologists, no one is going to look at rocks and say, "this is all that is wrong with religion!" If you want an understanding of the debate on whether or not God exists at all, see this complicated page. If you want to inflate the Nye-Ham debate to include the existence of God, then please get off my blog and never speak to me in public because I will rip you apart unflinchingly.


YEC and macro-evolution are only theories.
No matter how strongly either case was made in this debate, neither party can say that their view is fundamentally correct beyond any and all doubt. Both theories are the result of inductive reasoning and are subject to future evidence. Imagine two people building huts with materials from the same section of forest. Each will claim that their hut is more fireproof than the others and they will debate for days on end, showing how the others hut can't stand up to the flame. Neither hut will stand once a tsunami or tornado hits, though.

As is the problem with all theories there is no absolute right or wrong. The one theorizing may believe they are right, or that another is wrong, but their theory is only as strong as the evidence they have to support their claim. At any time new evidence could arise that confirms or denies even the most carefully constructed theory. Until we create a time machine to go back and observe things happening first-hand, the debate over the history of our universe will never truly end.


When you talk about logic...
About halfway through the video I got sick of hearing, from both Nye and Ham, that their side was more reasonable. Yes, it is reasonable to believe God created the universe; yes, it is reasonable to believe scientific studies of the past are likely to be true. Virtually anything can be reasonable, so here are two instances when reason takes you into a pit of despair with no way out.

As I already outlined in a previous entry, there was this guy named Xeno who constructed a series of paradoxes to screw with academics to this day. Here is one example of his line of reasoning; you want to get from point 0 to point 1. At some time you have to pass .5 to get from 0 to 1. To get to .5 you have to pass .25, and to pass .25 you have to pass .125, and so on. Eventually you get to the point where you realize it is impossible for you to move because you will always have to pass the halfway point between your intended destination and the halfway point to that first halfway point. Long story short, logic just prevented anyone from ever moving.

The second example, and one I feel is much more compelling, is the Gettier problem. Please just read the two cases in his article because I don't feel like summarizing a paper that hardly even counts as a brochure. Assuming you just read the article and started reading again, Gettier used common-sense logic to show how it is possible to have justification for your beliefs, and have unknowingly false information, yet still have a correct conclusion. Echoing the sentiments of David Hume, if something like this can happen with minor states of affairs, how likely is it that our understanding of the big things is dead wrong? Logic doesn't seem so logical anymore.


Bill Nye REALLY wants more scientists to help the economy.
I'm sorry, but by my count he made this point at least 8 times over the course of the debate, nearly as many times as he challenged someone to find an out-of-place fossil in the archaeological record. We get it, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. No one is going to say, "we don't have a need for more scientists." Additionally, as I started out with this paper, being a scientist doesn't mean believing the universe is 4.7 billion years old. Being a scientist means inventing, hypothesizing, observing, creating, etc. Christians, muslims, atheists, buddhists, scientologists, and ginger kids can all participate in the same science fairs without debating how old the universe is.



That's about all I have for you. While I may come off as somewhat cynical, it is only because I have come across and been involved in this type of debate countless times. Debating is a good thing and, if done correctly, enhances all parties involved. Just make sure you remember it is a matter of idea vs. idea, not group vs. group.

Steve