The arguments of both sides were deeply flawed and missed HUGE key points and supports for both sides! Given the position of both these men in their respective communities I frankly, expected more.
Here is the link to the original debate...obviously, my thoughts follow.
Now, I know that this is going to spark a lot of e-mails from my deeply religious friends, but that's ok, this is something that should be talked about. The topic was whether Creationism is a viable method of human origin to be taught to school children.
Let's start with Mr. Ken Ham.
First, I never would have picked a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) to debate Bill Nye. There is SO much that is left to faith in the young earth model that a persistent atheist (like Mr. Nye) would have no problem showing all the un-backed scientific holes! But aside from that, Mr. Ham left out key points, got MAJORLY off topic, and made assumptions about the Bible that aren't there to make! Much like the assumptions that he accused secular scientists of making!
Second, he spoke often on the differences between Darwinism and Creation "trees of life" and yet completely ignored the fact that Darwin was deeply faithful, and was trying to explain the bible in scientific terms! Now I'm not a Darwin expert, but his "warm pond" theory, to me, never negated the potential for divine intervention. Nothing offered by either side eliminated the possibility that they could both be correct.
Third, unless I missed something about the original question, nothing about the origins of morality, definition of marriage, or the fact that some proponents of YEC are highly educated is valid or relevant to discussing the viability of YEC as an education source. Morality is a faith AND societally based construct. Morays, taboos, and social structure were all in existence BEFORE Christianity as a cornerstone of the process of "civilization". The only thing that Judaism/Christianity did was define a set of rules for a subsection of the population based on an emerging religion. The definition of marriage is for me tough because I see it as a religious tem not a socio/political term. As it stands today it is interchangeable...but now I'm off topic. The ludacris implied statement that YEC is a viable scientific theory to teach children because there are lots of scientists who made big contributions to technology who believe it should have gotten him laughed off the stage, but it only gave Mr. Nye cannon fodder.
Finally, Mr. Ham walked straight into the line of fire when he admitted that some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, and some is poetry or stories. The argument that the bible can be taken literally at any point (from his comments on historical science) implies that the bible was written as the contained events occurred. All biblical scholars know that the bible was written by different authors, sometimes years after events occurred! In the case of Genesis, it was written generations later, even if you espouse YEC!
And now for Mr. Nye
If it is possible, I am more disappointed in Mr. Nye than in Mr. Ham. As a scientist there is nothing that should be excluded from creating the best possible theory. True, you can't TEST divinity, but if it fits into the data collected as an option...it is viable.
While Mr. Nye did a much better job of staying on topic his blanket disregard for the possibility of intelligent design was, to use his word, unsettling. He also harped on the need for children and young adults to be "scientists" implying the exclusion of faith and reliance on pure science to find answers that are metaphysical at one end, and existential at the other, also...not relevant to the debate topic! He also fell victim to emotional appeals and personal instead of topical debate.
The idea of intelligent design is not ludacris, it's a belief, like science. His blatant dismissal (though I applaud him for admitting the unknowns of science, "what came before the big bang?") of a possibility that the earth is younger than he thinks and might be constructed by something else, is exceptionally maddening. For Mr. Nye it is apparently completely irrational that some unknown force may have compressed rock layers, or increased the reproductive capacity of animals after the ark to cause a boom in population growth, or spoke the universe into being. And that is what a scientist is supposed to do, find an idea and see if the data contradicts it! Not declare impossibility and reject out of hand.
As did Mr. Ham, Mr. Nye decided to make an unnecessary and inaccurate statement about how educated people validate the system. While Mr. Nye admitted that there are faithful people who are scientists he continued to call for more students to pursue science, invent things and solve problems as if somehow YEC were unable to do that! And while YEC, believers of intelligent design, and secular scientists all believe different things, that has no bearing on the individual's ability to contribute to the scientific community!
I personally found Mr. Nye's persistent "dumbing down" of scientific processes inappropriate and out of place. The people in that audience know that there is no sound in space, we don't need a silent analogy of the big bang. There is also no need to bring a fossil found by the side of the road, to explain a fossil record. Finally, personally, I don't need a description of the evolutionary process of being a simple to complex method...that's what evolution is! Just because intelligent design to you means perfect from the start and then adaptation, doesn't mean that is the only interpretation!
The thing that bothered me the most...about both arguments...is that they completely ignore the concept of God's time (here is a great philosophical paper on if God is bound by time...or above it) and here is a bible verse reflecting on conquering impossibility (Luke 18:27)! Any scientist who dismisses a possibility because it seems rediculous or impossible should turn in his degree! And any man of faith who doesn't acknowledge that the impossible is what makes God...well God...is missing the point!
I hope that the debate...and maybe this...inspires people to ask questions, clarify their thoughts, and maybe be willing to accept the validity of an impossibility as an option.
...Nature girl
