Thoughts on "The Debate"

Alright, so we've all been talking about the infamous debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on young earth creationism vs. actual science.
I'm not going to hide my bias in this and I will flat-out say that I think Ken ham was entirely full of crap.

With that said, I don't think Bill Nye has sat down and really considered the fundamental differences between evolution and creationism. His debate structure focused on trying to "prove" the validity of science via the methods that scientists value and favor, asking "how else would you explain it?" with relative frequency.

Ham, being a professional smooth talker, has practiced having this argument many times, and he knew what points were easiest to attack and what defenses he could adequately rely on.

Nye struck the heart of the issue a single time that I heard near the end when he declared that science simply had the far more compelling explanation of the two systems. Scientific explanations are more robust, nuanced, and accountable than those of the bible. Unfortunately, he spent little time on this general principle, and instead focused on a number of very specific phenomena that laypersons know little about. Ham had counters to the vast majority of these arguments, and while some of them weren't satisfying intellectually, they were consistent with his set of beliefs.

The structure of the debate and Nye opting to play pretty strictly by the rules kept him from addressing counter-arguments with any specificity, which was the real shame of the debate. Instead, Nye appeared to Scramble over dozens of scattered points that had little to no connection with each other in an attempt to cast a wide net of doubt. Without driving deep towards any of the specific problems that were uncontested, Nye missed a golden opportunity.

Why aren't there kangaroo fossils anywhere except Australia? Surely one of them must have died during the journey from the Middle East to Australia?
What about instances of observable evolution in species with shorter life spans and high birth rates? Insects that have objectively changed to better suit their environment?

Nye never picked an issue to hammer home except the notion of predictions. The problem with that is that Ham did address predictions. It wasn't a satisfying explanation, but he addressed the concern. Nye did not address his counterclaims, leaving the issue feeling as though the two were talking over each others' heads rather than carrying a conversation.

Such is the nature of the entire discussion though, and Nye should have had the foresight to avoid going into it at all.

To switch gears and berate Ham for a minute, there's an argument that I really hate within Creationism; the idea that because humans are here and intelligent, and that the laws of the universe are consistent, it's proof that there's an Authority.

Hold up. There's something you're missing about the very basis of existence; if humans were not intelligent, we wouldn't have the understanding to grasp the issues of creation. Therefore, the conversation wouldn't even exist in the first place. If the the concept of origination can only be understood or discussed by .000000001% of organisms in the universe, then of course the ones who can understand it will discuss it and the ones who can't won't. It's a goddamn tautology.

The laws of the universe are consistent because a universe with inconsistent laws wouldn't function. Humans, by necessity, wouldn't have time to develop because the universe wouldn't be able to keep anything going for any extended period of time, since the rules change. In that event, there wouldn't be humans to discuss whether or not the universe is consistent.

So, the universe has to be consistent if organisms are to survive, which they have.

Humans (or comparable creatures) have to exist. There is not a possible situation where intelligent life forms don't exist but the question of creation and origin is still relevant.
Likewise, the question of creation and origin only exists because there are intelligent life forms to raise it.
Even if the odds of intelligent life existing are .00000000000000000000000000000000000001%, the rest of that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% doesn't have the mental capacity to entertain the thoughts about intelligent life existing. As a result, the only place where this discussion can occur is a place that fits that .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% threshold. (Moreover, blah blah blah, statistical likelihood of anything above 0% has near certainty of occurring if the space in which you're examining is infinite or near infinite)









(I really wish I was intelligent enough to get my thoughts out in a coherent pattern on this issue, but I don't believe that I am, so I hope this explanation suffices)

Also REALLY? Survival of those who survive?! That IS survival of the fittest. Those who survive are, on average, those who are better suited to the environment; those who have better adapted to their surroundings. It's actually a really fantastic tautology, and I have no idea why it's difficult to grasp. The things that survive are the things that are more capable of survival. That is what it means to be more fit in evolutionary biology.

This whole thing went about as well as I expected it would, and it made me exactly as frustrated as I thought it might. The big upset for me was that Nye didn't talk to the audience as though they were students interested in learning (and in fairness, many of them weren't interested). He talked to them like he'd already given up on them. He spoke hopefully only to the people watching online. He spoke as though we all had the same wealth of knowledge that he has at the ready. I'd have loved to have seen him debate as though it had been an episode of his show. The passion was there, but not the confidence that his audience would care.

Blargh. I hate creationism, but I don't think Nye had much of an idea how to debate a creationist before this.