To my peer editors: This is definitely a work in progress. I'm still adjusting to the QRG genre, and I know there is much to add and fix. Also, I had a chem test and a calculus test last week, so I apologize if some of this isn't my best work. But that's what the revision is for, right? It's still a complete draft. I also want you guys to look out for any instance of bias on my part. I'm not sure if I was perfectly objective, and I don't want my opinion to outshine my re-telling of the story. So please check me on that. So without further ado...
What you need to
know about “Ham on Nye”
On a cold wintry night in England 1859, a certain 502-page book
was released that would spur enough discussion and debate to likely fill up
another 502-page book. On the Origin of
the Species had some content that, though author Charles Darwin provided
evidence, was rejected without a second thought – the idea of evolution through
natural selection inherently clashed with ideas of intelligent design and
biblical teachings. But as time went on and more and the evidence for the
theory of evolution began to pile, people seemed to get a little more
comfortable. Of course, there’s probably nothing in this world upon which
everyone would agree. Even today, the debate among evolutionists and creationists
is ever so lively. In fact, just a few years ago, two public figures in their
respective fields got together and verbally hashed it out in front of everyone
to see. February 4th, 2014 was an important date for scientists and
creationists alike.
Meet the Challenger: Ken Ham
President and CEO of the Christian ministry Answers in
Genesis, and founder of the Creation Museum, Ken Ham is a vigilant Christian
whose goal it is to uphold
the bible and every one of its teachings. He’s a white-haired Aussie who
came to America and easily rose to become a top speaker on Christianity. His
collared shirt and white hair scream experience, though he often doesn’t have
much in the way of sceientifc evidence to back his claims. But his conviction
is strong, and it doesn’t look like he’s anywhere close to backing down to the
Science Guy.
The Opposition: Bill
Nye the Science Guy
He’s a staple of the middle school science classroom. His
narrow face is accented so wonderfully by his bow tie, and his well-groomed
hair is graying so eloquently. Most of us know him from his poplar TV show from
the 90’s, in which he presented science in an invigorating and understandable
way for kids. He’s a little quirky in the show, but he’s more than just the
comedic “science guy”. Outside of the classroom set for the show, Nye is an
educator, mechanical engineer, author, and inventor. Nye has a wide variety of
interests, but you can bet that if it’s related to science, he’s there. The man
has a goal of his own: to promote
the inclusion of evolution and science in education. This gives him the
motivation to debate with all his heart.
The Setting:
The debate took place within the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
Such a grandiose stage for an intriguing event; glass windows, exhibits just outside
of the theater, a swanky interior, and . . . home court advantage for Ken Ham?
Maybe not. But the museum is a destination for people of all
beliefs, so there was no shortage of attendees. The seats were filled with an
engaged and intrigued audience. The lights shined upon Ham, Nye, and the
moderator, making for a perfect debate setting.
Is biblical creation
a viable model of origins in today’s scientific era?
Ham begins with an interesting thought – he tries to present
the distinction between observational and historical science. According to Ham,
anything testable in a lab is observational science, while anything about the
past is historical science. Ham believes that science is not a term being
properly used, and that origin of life as depicted literally in Genesis is the
only reasonable model, but people don’t accept it because they don’t understand
what historical science is. (By Ham’s own self-admission later on, the
distinction only exists for him – not even
for other members of Answers in Genesis.)
Nye began his opening statement with an anecdote about bow
ties and finished it with the strong claim that the biblical model of origins
just doesn’t work. He cited things like the Grand Canyon and America’s influence
in the technological world. In truth, Nye had much more evidence to back his
opening statement than Ham did. Ham has the Word of God, but the source is
biased and only works if the audience believes wholeheartedly in the Bible.
This trend continues throughout the remainder of the debate.
Following the opening statements, each man had thirty
minutes to give a presentation on their beliefs.
Major takeaways from Ham’s presentation:
Because we didn’t see things happen ourselves, we
have no way to know a thing about the scientific account.
He and Nye both have the same evidence, but what
they each did with it differs
Students are being indoctrinated to believe in
evolution and prevented from thinking critically
You can’t observe the age of the earth
The events of Genesis should be taken as truth;
anything else cannot be properly proven.
The Bible is all you need to know the origins of
life.
Ham’s
counter: not every scientist gets the exact same date when using these dating
methods, and the earth is 6,000 years old
Major takeaways from Nye’s presentation:
Proof of evolution exists even in the very rocks
surrounding the debate venue
For the earth to be as young as Ham claims, we’d
have to have over a hundred winters every year
The Great Flood in Genesis should have left a
massive canyon on every continent
The math done by astronomers as well as the
number of stars, are also strong pieces of proof
Nye’s counter:
The bible is ‘troubling’, and the natural laws of the universe are upheld.
Essentially, the
debate boiled down to not a question of origins, but a question of science. The
two men on stage both defined the term differently, and consequently both
defended their arguments differently. This makes it difficult to compare the
men against one another; because they operated under entirely different sets of
premises, there was no way they could come to an agreement.
So, Who Won?
It’s a loaded question. Most religious people will give the
victory to Ham. Most scientists would chalk it up to Nye. There’s a reason this
is still a hot topic of conversation today – people can’t agree. It’s hard to pick a decisive winner, but it’s
easy to look at what’s at stake for each party.
For Nye, it’s a matter of two things: credibility and
successful education and development in the sciences. On credibility, if he
were to lose the debate (or at least not represent his beliefs properly), he
would run into difficulty in further work. If people couldn’t trust him to do
good, trustworthy science, his career would be over. Credibility is so
important for scientists. Having evidence to back up claims is so important.
Fortunately, Nye had plenty of these things in the debate, so there’s a victory
in that.
On science education, it’s important to understand where Nye
stands on that. According to him, there is a
strong need for engineers and scientists, and students not able to
understand evolution are just like students not properly educated in math and
science. This wouldn’t be a full, proper education. Additionally, if we stunt
our educations, we wouldn’t be able to continue to grow and evolve, and we
would fall behind internationally. Nye agreed to participate in this debate in
order to shed light on the importance of these topics.
For Ham, it’s more about spreading a message. It
seems that he wants people to hear his beliefs and consider them. He’s worried
that individuals will become unable to critically think or properly perform
science because they will become indoctrinated by evolution.
To get people to hear his message would be to get more people to consider the
biblical account of origins, thus converting more people to believe. He also wouldn’t
want to completely flop, as doing so would result in a complete disregard to
anything he consequently has to say.
What it Means to You
Whether you’re an evolutionist or a creationist, there’s
something that you can take from this debate. Maybe it’s testimony to further
your religious faith, thanks to Ken Ham. Or maybe it’s more evidence for your
belief in evolution, thanks to Bill Nye. Or maybe it’s just something amusing
on which to spend some time. Any of these things are okay. The most important
thing to remember is that this debate probably isn’t slowing down any time
soon. And who knows, maybe Nye on Ham will one day be a crucial stepping stone
for future conversations on the subject. But for now, at least we can all
agree; the controversy on our origins is still alive and kickin’.
