The recently publicized debate between Ken Ham and
Bill Nye has generated the attention of many people, including
myself. One interesting response to this debate comes from those in
the evolutionary community who share Bill's view. Many seem to loathe
the fact that Bill has agreed to the debate, stating that it is a bad
idea. One such view comes from Dan Arel via the Richard Dawkins
Foundation:
Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham
Arel's response reveals the agenda that
atheists have- to suppress the reality of God. This is usually
manifest by an attempt to suppress those who would speak His truth
into the culture. Since atheists often like to fashion themselves as
the rational innovators who alone dwell within the realm of science,
I've decided to do something novel, at least for me anyways. In
addition to responding to some of his claims I will attempt to
quantify and analyze Arel's response in a mathematical and
philosophical fashion. I will count his propositions in their
entirety and then pull some statistical data concerning fallacies,
bullshit, and outright bald assertions in his brief article. Let's
see how this plays out. Go.
Scientists should not debate creationists. Period.
1. Loaded Statement & False
Dichotomy- If you're a scientist then you are not a creationist, and
if you're a creationist* then you are not a scientist (naturally).
This is built upon the Assumption that believing in God and some
doctrine of creation somehow renders you unable to do science, or
perhaps that science somehow requires a rejection of God and thus
creation. Okay, so his first thesis is a loaded statement containing
a false dichotomy that completely ignores the history of science. No
biggie.
*(In this context I am using the term
"creationist" to refer only to serious, credentialed
scientists who are Christians, and who hold the creation model to be
worthy of exploring and developing.)
But just to be sure we're on the right track thus
far let's reverse the claim:
Scientists should not debate with evolutionists.
Period.
I would wager a healthy amount of dinero that
Arel would take issue with that statement. Yep, we're trackin.
This may sound harsh but let's start by
looking at what sparked this statement. TV personality
and science advocate Bill Nye (Bill Nye the
Science Guy) has accepted an invitation to debate Ken Ham of Answers
in Genesis / The Creation Museum on February 4, 2014 at the Creation
Museum in Kentucky.
This is a bad idea and here is why.
Debating creationists offer their position
credibility
When you accept a debate, you are accepting
there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth
debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and
flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim
to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to
achieve such problems. Debates about the existence of God can be fun,
they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about
ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.
Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth
debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate.
That's odd. Another instance of
question-begging- a question-begging epithet. Who knew? Let's reverse
it to be sure though:
Creation vs. evolutionism however is not worth
debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate.
Attaching the "ism" only to creation
and not to evolution is only an admission of his bias, not an
argument. Until is is argued in a rational way it remains dogma and
nothing more.
Evolution is a scientific fact,
Wait, let me guess... like gravity?
It appears that evolutionists believe that
saying "evolution is a scientific fact" over and over will
somehow make it so. And maybe they are on to something. After all,
repetition and dogmatic assent have been used rather effectively in
the past-both in the realm of religion and politics. I mentioned
gravity because I've heard it used as an analogy to evolution on a
number of occasions, including that one Friends episode.
Most of us understand scientific facts to
include things like gravity. Though we cannot see "gravity"
itself, its effects are observable, making it observable indirectly.
It is repeatable- you can drop a rock on your foot all day if you
like and it will keep falling every time. And lastly, and perhaps
most importantly, it is testable. If you like you can make
predictions involving it and test them out to see if they work to any
degree of success.
That is what makes science such an awesome
endeavor. We can start from a foundation of things that are knowable
and logical and build off of them. That is really what science and
technology is about. Constructing applications based upon previous
knowledge and applications. Observable, Testable, and Repeatable.
That is the scientific process in its essence.
Evolution is none of these. We don't observe
it now- it is a claim about the unobservable past. It is certainly
not repeatable, though Stanley Miller tried to repeat a very small
portion of it. And evolution is not testable in any reasonable sense,
other than of course to falsify its claims- which evolutionists avoid
like a smelly hippie does Abercrombie.
What this means is that despite the ardent
dogmatism of Arel and others, evolutionism is an attempt at
constructing a scientific model- not a theory, and sure as hell not a
scientific law or fact. And whether its adherents like it or not,
evolutionism is a rather poor model given what we now know of the
laws of the universe. When given the choice between any scientific
model and well-established, testable laws, the outcome ought to be
obvious. Laws win. Every time.
backed by mountains of evidence,
This is where evolutionists make
linguistic use of the clout they have managed to amass in the
previous decades. We might first note that evidence must always be
interpreted. Thus this claim is dubious as it stands. Both
creationists and evolutionists have the exact same evidence and
arrive at sometimes completely different conclusions. Of course those
holding to Arel's position would likely say that this is due to the
stupidity of creationists.
But to those of us who are willing to think
through the issues critically, without being dismissive, it appears
that the two camps have different underlying assumptions /
presuppositions that in turn shape how they interpret evidence.
Of course, when creationists bring forth
evidence (if you are willing to look there are well developed,
scientific arguments out there) that flies in the face of
evolutionary dogmatism what happens? They are marginalized and
dismissed. They aren't engaged and debated, and for good reason- that
would bring evolutionary claims out in the open more. But it is not
just the creationist wackos that feel the wrath of the dogmatic
Darwinists, anyone who dares to question evolution in any way shape
or form gets ousted immediately. Will Hart's article on
the BrainPolice is well worth the read for some examples of
how this plays out, as is the film Expelled.
peer-reviewed papers you could stack
to the moon
To the moon?!!! HOLY BLUE NEUTRONS
BATMAN!!! No wonder evolution is on such firm ground! Maybe Arel
knows something else the general public doesn't.
Let's see...Depending on measurement force,
uncertainty, and of course the average thickness of the grade of
paper used- let's assume approximately .114mm / sheet average
thickness- the cumulative sheet total of those peer-reviewed papers
would need to number around 3.36 trillion to reach the moon, which
averages out to 21.69 billion sheets per year since Darwin first
published The Origin of Species in 1859. If each journal article
averaged 12 pages in length that would equate to a mere 1.8 billion
peer-reviewed publications a year since Darwin's publication.
Hmm...I'm guessing hyperbole?
Still, my sarcasm aside- How many peer-reviewed
papers directly supporting evolution are there? While I certainly
don't know scientifically, I would wager that a larger portion of
scientific papers out there have little to do with evolution and a
lot more to do with, I don't know, actual science. Perhaps I'm
revealing my ignorance here but what does evolution have to do with
any advances in science? Really? What are the top ten discoveries and
or advancements that can be directly attributed to evolutionary
thinking and or "theory?" Anyone? ... Anyone?
and an incredible scientific community
consensus.
How could it be anything else given all
those peer-reviewed papers eh? ...Besides, how could so many be
wrong? ... Right? ... I mean, that's never happened before in
history.
This "incredible consensus" isn't
shocking given that the behavior of some secular scientists resembles
someone running a Russian Gulag. When it comes to their sacred cow of
Darwinism you don't trifle. Don't agree with me? Well, we will
pressure you to. We'll fire you! We'll bring a lawsuit! We will shout
at you and mock and ridicule!...Or you can join us. Your choice.
The only thing incredible here is that people who
claim to be rational act like snotty-nosed children who aren't
getting their way. Except that in this case they largely have the
power to do as they like.
Creationism is a debunked mythology
that is based solely in faith.
Creation is rooted in faith, but it is
anything but blind, which is likely what he is implying by using the
phrase "solely in faith." Does Arel (or any other militant
Darwinist for that matter?) even have a clue about the history of
science? Would he pretend to hold a candle to Francis Bacon, Isaac
Newton, Blaise Paschal, or Louis Pasteur? Did these men stand around
the campfire roasting marshmallows singing Kumbaya to get the
insights? Did they call up Benny Hinn? Hardly.
These men and dozens of other "idiots"
as Arel would likely call them, were absolutely genius in their
scientific research, writings, and discoveries. They had a keen
awareness of the image of God in them as they exercised their minds
to understand the world around them that God created. They had no
trouble glorifying him through the pursuit of knowledge (science) and
in applying themselves to new discoveries and insights.
Many of them helped to lay the foundation of
science and technology that we are now benefiting from today. All
this from those who believed in a supposed "debunked
mythology?" What do you think good reader?
