Bill Nye has come into a lot of criticism for some of his not-so-well-thought-out appearances debating climate deniers, and his decision to debate the founder of Kentucky’s Creation Museum.
The obviously unscientific result above notwithstanding – it’s a dilemma for anyone who wishes to defend science against ignoramuses – hence the connection to this blog. What’s that old saying about pig wrestling?
It was like watching the Broncos play the Seahawks. Nye never had a chance. Ham won this debate months ago, when Nye agreed to participate. By last Friday, when I spoke with Ham, Nye hadn’t even arrived in Kentucky, but Ham was already basking in the glow of victory (Nye didn’t respond to my request for comment). “The response,” Ham told me, “has been absolutely phenomenal.” He talked about the media attention. He talked about how professional the stage was going to look. He talked more about the media attention. “It’s going to create a lot of discussion. I think that’s very healthy,” said Ham, in reference to the raging scientific debate over whether evolution actually happened. “In many ways aggressive atheists have shut down that discussion.” But, Ham continued, “the public wants to hear about” origins. Fortunately, Nye has given them that chance.
When I asked whether the debate would bring any financial perks, Ham hastened to talk me down. “The ticket sales won’t come to half the cost of the debate,” he explained. The publicity, though, may be priceless. The last time Ham gained national media attention, it was for his failure to raise enough money to build the enormous Noah’s Ark theme park he’s been planning as an accompaniment to his slick creation museum. This time, he gallops onto the national stage as defender of the faith—a stance that may open some pocketbooks. Perhaps Ham will dedicate a plank in the replica ark to his bowtied benefactor.
That started when Ham asserted that creationism was not only an acceptable option for explaining the beginning of the planet, but the only option.
“Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era,” Ham said.
That was Ham’s key message throughout the night, and within it is another message he tried to get across throughout the evening: That there is a difference between science based on what we can observe today and science that tries to detail what happened in the past, such as any scientific theory that can prove the Earth is several billion years old as opposed to a mere 6,000 years young, as Ham and Young Earth Creationists believe. It is essentially a “pics or it didn’t happen” theory, a statement that says if you weren’t there, you can’t prove it, something he also said throughout the night.
“When we’re talking about origins, we’re talking about the past,” Ham said. “We weren’t there. You can’t observe that. Whether it’s molecules-to-man evolution or whether it’s a creation account. I mean, you’re talking about the past. We like to call that origins or historical science, knowledge concerning the past. Here at the Creation Museum, we make no apology about the fact that our origins or historical science actually is based on the Biblical account of origins.”
Nye poked holes in the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old by providing evidence for how scientists have dated trees that are older than that, and such evidence seemed to be one part of his three-pronged platform.
The science guy also devoted some time to challenging Ham’s notion that there is a difference between “observational” and “historical” science.
“This idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws we have now I think is that the heart of our disagreement,” Nye said. “I don’t see how we’re ever going to agree with that if you insist that natural laws have changed. It’s, um, for a lack of a better word, it’s magical.”
32 thoughts on “Bill Nye the Naive Guy?”