Did the Ham/Nye debate really happen?

Last updated on: May 28, 2014 at 10:37 am by Dan Wilkinson

Did the Ham/Nye debate really happen? 2014-05-28T10:37:48-06:00 Dan Wilkinson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

While there’s plenty to discuss about what was (or wasn’t) said during the Ham/Nye debate, I think the crux of the whole affair comes down to how one understands science.

The foundation of Mr. Ham’s argument is his distinction between what he calls historical and observational science:

There’s experimental or observational science as we call it, that’s using the scientific method: observation, measurement, experiment, testing … all scientists, whether creationists or evolutionists actually have the same observational or experimental science … When we’re talking about origins, we’re talking about the past, we’re talking about our origin, we weren’t there, you can’t observe that, whether it’s molecules-to-man evolution or whether it’s the creation account. And when we’re talking about the past, we like to call that origins or historical science, knowledge concerning the past.

For Mr. Ham, this differentiation between past and present methodologies has profound implications:

You can’t observe the age of the earth, and I would say that comes under what we call historical origins science. Now, just so you can understand where I’m coming from, yes, we admit we build our historical origins science on the Bible … There’s only one infallible dating method, it’s the witness who was there, who knows everything, who told us, and that’s from the word of God.

But differentiating between observational and historical science is a contrived manipulation that bisects science in a way that favors Ham’s specific position. It’s a not-so-subtle attempt to level the playing field, to try and claim that there’s no substantive evidential differences between the two “sides” — which provides the justification for the claim that there’s a very real debate to be had about creation and evolution. After all, none of us were around throughout creation to see what actually happened there, right?

Mr. Nye ably responds:

As far as ‘you can’t observe the past.’ I have to stop you right there. That’s what we do in astronomy. All we can do in astronomy is look at the past. By the way, you’re looking at the past right now. Because the speed of light bounces off of me and then gets to your eyes and I’m delighted to see that the people in the back of the room appear just that much younger than the people in the front. So this idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now, I think is at the heart of our disagreement. I don’t see how we’re ever going to agree with that if you insist that natural laws have changed. It’s a — for lack of a better word, it’s magical.

Mr. Nye is correct — we can’t make any direct, in-the-present observations. It’s all in the past. When it comes to the natural world, we are only witnesses to past events. And the best tool available for understanding the natural world — past, present and future — is science. Not a bifurcated science, but a holistic, comprehensive and robust science. In the words of Mr. Nye:

I’m looking for explanations of the creation of the world as we know it, based on what I’m going to call science. Not historical science. Not observational science. Science.

If I were to accept as true Mr. Ham’s understanding of science, then if I walked outside and saw snow on the ground I wouldn’t be able to conclude that it snowed. If I came home and found my house in disarray with items missing I couldn’t conclude that I was robbed. If I stepped off the edge of a high cliff I couldn’t conclude that I was about to fall to my death.

From Mr. Ham’s point of view, a person who didn’t watch the debate would have to conclude that it didn’t happen. And despite any evidence to the contrary, the debate will continue not to have happened right up until the Bible says that it did.

Which will never happen.

The good news for Ham and his ilk is that they never have to learn anything new. The bad news for the rest of us is that, in the real world, the only thing ignorance leads to is more ignorance.

Dan Wilkinson
Dan is a writer, graphic designer and IT specialist. He lives in Montana, is married and has two cats. He blogs at CoolingTwilight.com.

Previous Post

February 5, 2014

The Ham/Nye debate in 40 seconds

Next Post

February 10, 2014 Martin Luther King Jr.'s Challenge to the Church

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Reviews Christian History Christian Issues Christian Spirituality Current Events Fundamentalism Islam John Shore LGBT Movie Reviews Poetry Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz