I going to do two things in this post: begin with some links to post-debate analysis, then include some comments from the Uncommon Descent blog.
There were two related events last night: the formal debate between Ham and Nye, then a joint interview with Piers Morgan. I didn't watch either one. I don't think Ham and Nye are terribly competent spokesmen for their representative positions.
Post-debate analysis tends to focus on lost opportunities. Post-debate analysis can be more useful than the actual debate because it gives the commentator the opportunity to shore up deficits in the actual debate:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 30scordovaFebruary 4, 2014 at 10:00 pmAs a card carrying YEC ( paid about $35 for my membership in Creation Research Society), I thought NYE won the debate but not hands down.He posed the question, “Is Ken Ham’s model viable?” the answer imho, is “not yet” which is as good as “no”. It was clear in the Q&A not even some YECs would agree with the model Ham had in mind, and in fact Ham waffled. “The Bible said it” is not a model.Ham however probably elevated the dignity of creationists by showing the media is distorting evidence and that creationists can do good operational science and that secularists are hijacking the definition of science.Nye made some mis-steps most notable claiming the adequacy of natural selection, and he fumbled over the 2nd law (and I could have given a better answer than the confused answer he gave), simply by saying “the 2nd law states…” “creationists mistake organization with entropy, entropy helps you estimate energy available to do useful work, you need entropy to be alive, if you remove all the entropy in your body (say by freezing to absolute zero) you die. Duane Gish was horribly wrong and that’s an example of creationism teaching bad science.”Some scientists who aren’t creationists don’t think the universe is expanding nor that the Big Bang is correct. Another forgivable misstep.Ham, when asked about the dinosaurs and carbon dating didn’t use the opening! He could have said “we find carbon 14 in dinos, ambers, and the entire carboniferous era of supposedly 300 million years ago, and then this casts doubt on the interpretation of other radiometric methods, and by the way other clocks indicate youth. Distant starlight would be a problem if the transmission of light over time and space is constant, and if one or both vary the speed of light, then it’s not a problem and that is a testable prediction” But he waffled and just waxed philosophical and theological.As both Dr. Sheldon and myself point out, we are skeptical of the existence of Dark Energy and Nye laid out the claim of dark energy as being real.Ham did a good job of using the notion of “the orchard” of life vs. trees. I’m not comfortable saying there is no increase of information, there is no significant increase in information, but I’m glad he had Fabich speak for him. And I was really glad Distinguished professor of astronomy Danny Faulkner spoke and advocated young universe.But is the model viable. “Not yet” in my opinion, and that is as good as “no” for the sake of science. But that’s not complete fair because we should also ask is the Darwinian model viable, “NO WAY, and never”, not even based on the terms of science Nye laid out.Both performed well, and it wasn’t the blowout of Ham destroying Nye, Nye won the fundamental question even if he had to use some falsehoods to win the debate. His criticism of Noah’s ark was powerful.What’s an example of a rout aside from the Seatle Seahawks crushing the Denver Broncos in the superbowl? Stephen Meyer vs. Peter Ward. That’s where the ID side completely obliterated the Darwinian side.Credit Ham for mentioning the Lord Jesus Christ and pointing out that we may have joy now to discover, but what will it mean for us when we are dead.
- 33QueriusFebruary 4, 2014 at 10:51 pmI think Ham was far better prepared in his presentation, but wobbled in rebuttal and the little Q&A that I could tolerate. Nye was as methodical as a sand flea with a flurry of attacks against YEC from every known science in random order. Ham would have needed “millions of years” to rebut every point. Good tactic by Nye.Nye did make good points about the reasonableness of some of the mathematics of Genesis, although he was apparently unable to grasp Ham’s presentation of the “orchard” model, and the profoundly expanded genetic variability in earlier organisms such as is apparently preserved in dogs was lost on Nye. The genetic variability dogs would enable them to easily form hundreds of “species” in a short amount of time.That Nye presented the inflationary model in one breath, and the fixed distance of stars in the next was as remarkable as Ham’s ignorance of the currently accepted understanding that the universe inflated faster than the speed of light, which means that a star that’s 6,000 light years distant could have been 1 light year distant a few seconds ago, as is thought to have happened at some point.Particularly appalling was Ham’s inability to come up with a single prediction based on YEC, or a reason why anyone could possibly be interested in Cosmology when the Bible already tells you that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.” Apparently, Ham’s curiosity is very easily sated. Nye’s attempt to enforce the imaginary separation between “scientists and engineers” from Christians pretty much failed in light of Ham’s presentation.Overall, Ham did a better job, but not by much, and I’m sorry to say that the encounter was reminiscent of a battle between a blind cobra (Nye) and a crippled mongoose (Ham).-Q
- 34scordovaFebruary 4, 2014 at 11:00 pmHam did point out the racism in early textbooks based on Darwin, I forgot to mention that. That was a good jab.Nye stated a falsehood, but one he obviously believes, that about Natrual Selection.Maybe I just found Nye more charming. Ham began to resort to implicit circular reasoning without justifying his reverence for the Bible, he just accepts it.It’s commendable that someone accepts the Bible, but with an audience watching to hear why you accept it and no answer is given except, “I believe it”, I find that off putting. Not once did Ham say why he believes it, he just states it without any support, which doesn’t look much better than saying “the book of the flying spaghetti monster answers all your questions….it answers the questions of …..” It comes across as closed-minded and out of touch and perhaps gullible. Exactly the qualities you don’t really want to see in someone, especially a scientist.Nye was being extremely diplomatic in not directly attacking the Bible, so he let up when he could have really abused Ken Ham. Nye could have said, “In the Bible, God commanded the children of Israel to kill women and children like the Amalekites. Do you agree that this was a good thing to do. If God asked you to do that, Ken, would you have done it?” Thankfully the debate didn’t get to such mud slinging…But personally I don’t care what individual has won the debate. The facts have decided, and the facts are the judge in the end (well, God is the judge in the end). So the facts win the debate.ID is true, and whether the case of YEC will ever be convincing from the data remains to be seen, but for now, I can only merely accept it personally, on faith, but I will admit, not all the available observations are friendly to YEC, there are unresolved serious problems. I know that, the best YEC scientists that I meet in conferences know that.Darwinism is dead, ID is alive, and YEC is still in the hospital bed.
- 35scordovaFebruary 4, 2014 at 11:20 pmHam answered a question that went something like, “if you had evidence that the world was old, would you still believe in God and Jesus Christ?”Ham basically answered that would be impossible since God’s word is true, which is nothing more than an assertion, and shows he will not follow physical evidence where it leads.I would have said, “Yes I would still believe in God and Jesus Christ. I’d believe in God because of the evidence of design even in an Old Universe, and I believe in Jesus Christ because of the blood of the martyrs and the changed lives, not the least of which is mine. If you can provide convincing proof that life can arise without intelligence, that would make me doubt, if you can provide proof that Jesus was not a historical person as well overturning the well-attested martyrdoms of the early Christians, I might have even more doubt, but you can’t say He hasn’t changed lives nor hasn’t answered prayers. But one thing is clear, there is no salvation in Charles Darwin nor eternal hope for a soul after death through science.”Why do I believe world is young? Half the scientific clocks say it is, half don’t. So it is inconclusive on evidential grounds. A natural reading of the Bible suggests it, so that makes it promising enough for me to believe it. If ALL the clocks said the world is old, then I don’t think I could accept YEC.
