As the great English empiricist, David Hume, argued: There is a poignant distinction between what is and what ought to be. That being said, we need to look at this debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham descriptively, over what actually transpired, instead of going up the inference latter and judging the debate as a political farce.
So who “won” the debate? Well obviously, neither one of them really won the debate. I’m going to quote one of my friends, who said it best on why “winner” or “loser” are misnomers for the outcome of this debate:
The main issue with this type of debate structure is that we’re asking a scientist to use facts, figures, etc. to debate an ideology. There’s a reason that opinions about presidential debates (and their corresponding election results, for the most part) are usually split 50/50: Ideology doesn’t “win” or “lose” debates. Good and bad performances do. As long as Ken Ham showed up, talked coherently, and stood his ground, his side will always think he won.
On first glance, it seems that my astute friend’s observation of the debate challenges my claim that this debate achieved stasis on what was argued. Well, yes & no. And here is why.
I agree with everything my friend said. However, I’d like to take it a step further. In the debate, at some point, both men created stasis in agreeing to argue what constitutes science writ large. Bill said that science must have predictive value. Dr. Ham understood this, or fell into Bill’s trap (whichever), creating stasis, and argued that Creationism as a science does have predictive value through the Bible. Thus the onus was on Dr. Ham to prove it. BAM — this was the crowning glory of the debate!
By predictive value, both men understood it as science’s ability to create theories so to either provide practical value for the future or to build upon previous knowledge to advance science. The most poignant example that came to mind is The Theory of Relativity.
Einstein’s Theories of General and Special Relativity brought about the creation of our beloved GPS. These theories were developed by Albert Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, military scientists used Einstein’s theories to make GPS possible. This is a solid example of science’s predictive value.
Does Creationism have predictive value? Dr. Ham had the burden of proof, which in my opinion he completely failed to accomplish. Noah’s Ark and the Creationist theory explaining it is not predictive, it’s retrograde, explaining after the fact.
On the other side, though, Bill took it upon himself to try to show how the normative science of evolution (or what he called “normal science”) had predictive value. Bill presented the preponderous of evidence that hinted to the validity of Darwinian evolution, which put him at an advantage. But he also failed in completely prooving the predictive value of the theory of evolution. In other words, Bill presented all this great evidence, but failed to connect that evidence adequately to the overarching theory of evolution as predictive.
To Bill’s credit, his task was nearly impossible, I think, without finding the “missing link” in the hominid record, which would definitively connect us with the primordial apes. If that “missing link” is found, I believe that the theory of evolution would prove itself as having predictive value.
So the argument of Creationism having predictive value was the essence of the debate, as I saw it. Both Bill and Dr. Ham acknowledged that they would talk about (i.e. Stasis) the predictive value of science, so in order for Creationism to be a legitimate science it had to have it. Bill tried using Darwinian evolution as an example of predictive value and failed. However, that was just extra. Dr. Ham just flat out fell on his face; he proved nothing except that Creationism is an ideology.
I’m sure other people have different interpretive descriptions to what transpired, more power to them.
Now for the actual assessment of the presentations:
(1) Dr. Ham had the most polished presentation, though Bill was obviously far more dynamic and charismatic.
(2) Bill was exceedingly belligerent as the debate continued, while Dr. Ham retained his composure throughout and occasionally inserted some of his quick wit.
(3) Bill’s strongest part of the debate was surely the question-answer portion, which was also Dr. Ham’s weakest. Bill usually went over in time, but that did not indicate weakness to me, rather the contrary. Dr. Ham always met the time limit, which indicated to me that he had either little to say or a pre-determined, dogmatic answer.
(4) Dr. Ham was the most articulate.
(5) Both men are incredibly intelligent. My favorite part was when Bill was explaining the theory to why humans reproduce sexually rather than asexually — utterly blew my mind! Fascinating stuff…
(6) Gotta give Bill kudos; he entered hostile territory to do this debate. In Kentucky, a bastion of Christian conservatism, and at the Creation Museum, he held his ground.
On purely pragmatic grounds, I fervently and wholeheartedly believe Bill Nye the Science Guy won the debate because he made 4+ different shoutouts throughout the debate for the need of more funding and further encouraging of the sciences for our youth. At some points I felt that Bill was a salesperson for science! In a relatively recent New York Times article, the statistics on how the United State lags globally in science and math education is astonishing and deeply saddening. And in an age where the government is increasingly cutting back in funding science, the need for the public to place emphasis on science is paramount.
I counted only one shoutout for science by Dr. Ham throughout the debate and it was only reactionary to one of Bill’s own shoutouts. This in my mind further solidified that Creationism is inherently retrograde and has no predictive value whatever. I felt that Creationism is more satisfied in explaining the world by making it compatible with the Bible, than actually predicting future advancements in science. But of course, this is just my personal judgment and is not descriptive of the actual debate.
In conclusion, this debate was FANTASTIC! Not because there was a “winner” or a “loser,” but because it made us think that much more about science. It’s probably overly idealistic of me to conclude with; but does not science first begin with an idea?
C’est Fin!!!
Idk 