The #hamonnye debate last night
between Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and Young Earth Creationist, Ken Ham, went
the way that most debates go. Both sides
argued their points with more or less finesse, both sides wandered off topic occasionally,
both sides let loose with a few cheap shots.
And what with the live tweeting and furious blogging that followed, I’m sure
there’s very little to be said here that hasn’t already been said somewhere
else. But there were two statements made
by Ken Ham that struck me as particularly incompatible; they are mutually exclusive. These two statement made by the same
presenter in the same debate cannot be held together at the same time, not
logically or rationally.
Early on in the debate
Ken Ham said “…kids aren’t being taught to think critically and correctly about
the origins issue…” (36:45) and again, “I believe we’re teaching people to
think critically and to think in right terms about science…we’re teaching them
the right way to think…” (50:50) Here
Ham declares his belief that it’s important to teach people to think – not what
to think, but how to think. He wants
them to be taught how to think critically.
That is to challenge, and to ask questions, to be open to new possibilities
that might disrupt previously held understandings.
But toward the end, he admitted that nothing could persuade him to change his
mind (2:18:00) – there’s no evidence that he would accept that would cause him
to change his believe in a young universe.
He can’t even imagine a hypothetical situation that would cause him to rethink
his interpretation of the bible and the observations of science.
This is not science. Observational
science (on which Ham spent much time in the debate) and the scientific method depend
upon challenges to established ideas.
Science welcomes the questions.
Science says, ‘show me how I could be wrong.’ And when an idea is shown to be untenable, it
is let go. This is not always a smooth
and painless happening, but science moves forward and grows. Ham, however, has already determined that his
particular (and peculiar) interpretation of the bible is the only true source
of knowledge and nothing – NOTHING – can be allowed to dissuade him from
it. No observational evidence will be
allowed to persuade him to reconsider.
This is not good
science. Neither is it good faith.