Here is a link to the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on this subject:
I thought this debate was very good. I heard what I think is the most compelling argument for the topic (Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?), and am deeply pleased that this conversation was possible in the mature and professional way that it occurred. I would like to comment on the debate itself, while attempting to keep as true to the topic as the debators did.
First of all, I am SO pleased that these gentlemen found the point that they disagree upon, and that which is the underlying reason for the debate question: What can you prove to yourself? There is a leap of faith involved in fully believing in either evolution or creationism. Because evolution occurred over billions of years, and humans have not been around for that long, nobody has had first-hand evidence to support the theory in the long-term. All we have been able to do is look at fossil records and the like, and piece together the model of best fit for the patterns we see. Complete evidence is lacking for the creationist argument as well, because of the nature of the basis from that argument: the Bible. We have to take the leap of faith that all of the translations were accurate, that we're interpreting the text correctly, and that the passages are the true historical accounts as told by God through his servants.
On a personal note, when confronted by these two leaps of faith, I have an easier time making the leap away from God than towards him. I concede that this could be a product of my upbringing. It could be that I have been hypnotized into counting certain evidence as more compelling than others. For the topic of this debate, however, whether or not creationism is the correct model of origins is a moot point. Has it been disproven? The answer is no, and as such, we should treat that model as we treat all others that have yet to be disproven.
The debate is whether or not that model is viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era. To this, specifically, I say that it is a viable theory, but one that does not function as sturdily as the theory of evolution does. I agree with Mr. Ham and Mr. Nye that there can be devoutly religious people who are also scientists, that there is room for both religion and reason in every human. However, there are certain places and situations where I cannot support the advent of creationism today.
Ken Ham made an argument during this debate that by teaching evolution in schools, the districts were teaching a religious idea. I recall him naming it the Religion of Naturalism. I do not doubt that evolution is indeed a part of many people's religions. Regardless of whether it is a part of or expressly denied by any religion, when the theory is demonstrably the best model for understanding and making predictions about our universe, it is a disservice to the students to belittle the authenticity of, or deny them this remarkable tool of science. This is why I believe evolution should be taught in schools, and creationism should not.
Our modern, scientific era is one where the teachings of religion, and the models of history derived therefrom, no longer go without questioning. Questioning is what science is all about. Today, we can use technology to challenge these versions of the story, and offer up evidence to the contrary. Bill Nye made the salient point many times during the debate that if we were to accept creationism as a viable model of origins today, our country would fall behind. If we turn to the Bible for answers and call it job done, our scientific progress will atrophy along with our sense of wonder about the universe.
The scientific method is beautiful in its structure. When we make scientific observations, we are making assumptions about, among other things, the homogeneity of the universe and the consistancy of its laws. There will never be full proof one way or the other. Built in to the scientific method, though, are measures to ensure that only the best theories survive, and to test every theory constantly, searching for new insights. As evidence supports a theory continuously, experiment after experiment, the theory proves to be robust, but never absolute law. One small piece of evidence against the theory has the capacity to destroy it completely. I welcome all theories onto this level playing field, as I welcome all evidence for and against every model. Because we can never fully prove that creationism is incorrect, it will always have a place on the spectrum of theories that explain the origin of our species. It is a spectrum, though, and although evolution is just as vulnerable to evidence disproving it, it is the most robust explanation we have discovered to date.
Ken Ham pointed out in his closing remarks his dissatisfaction with the evolution of cave fish from fish with eyes to fish without. His argument was that the fish have not gained anything, but lost something through the evolutionary process. This example is to him evidence that evolution does not choose winners and losers by survival of the fittest, and that some other mechanism is at work here. Bill Nye did not rebut this point, but I will here. Organisms are made of cells. Cells need energy/nutrients/food. The more active cells an organism has, the more food it needs. Eyes are made of cells, and naturally would require food to be sustained. Eyes also send electrochemical information to the brain, where brain cells use food energy to interpret the signal and make decisions on what to do. By living entirely in the dark, the signals from eyes to brain ceased their functionality; they became a waste of energy. By evolving the eyes away, each generation in the sequence had less and less active cells to feed where the eyes once were. The advantage here is that they can redirect nutrients that might have gone to the eyes of their ancestors, to other parts of their body, and have that much more energy to survive. In competitive environments, and in the long-term, it is the little things that count.
The fish are humans, the eyes a creationist model of origins, and the cave is today's modern, scientific era. It is not necessary for survival to remove the creationist model from our society completely, but minimalizing its role is, in my opinion, the most advantageous path for us to follow.
My thanks to Bill Nye and Ken Ham for debating this topic so well, to Tom Foreman for his fair moderation, and to the Creation Museum for hosting the event. I'm very glad this happened!
No comments:
Post a Comment