Impressions from the Big Debate - Bill Nye vs Ken Ham

[If you are offended easily, please ignore this post.]

Does no one find it odd that the only person Ken Ham had the guts to go up against is a mechanical engineer who has been away from serious academics for a long time?

If Ken Ham was ever so confident, should not he have done battle with a biologist, a botanist or a zoologist?

Despite his obvious lack of qualification, Bill Nye presented a surprisingly cogent case in favour of evolution. His lack of debating skills were overcome in part due to his familiarity in presenting basic scientific theories on television and talk shows. His peculiar stories though did not do him any favours. Maybe he should have stopped being the decent person in the debate and called out his opponent on his outright lies.

Ken Ham on the other hand was almost boorish by comparison. He simply does not understand how the radiometric dating of minerals is done and hence believes them to be inaccurate. Furthermore, he lacks understanding of the formation of sedimentary rock structures. The Grand Canyon example that he presented clearly displayed his ignorance. Shale layers contain uranium, thorium and potassium and a study of their radioactive decay can quite accurately furnish the age of a rock.

Further, Ken Ham ignores that the modern study of evolution no longer relies on the shape of finch beaks, rather a study of gene sequences. Ken Ham stresses on how all life arose from different 'kinds'. This theory falls flat when presented with the fact that humans and reptiles share certain gene sequences. According to the philosophy of Ken Ham, this should not be so, yet it has been proven without a shadow doubt.

Ken Ham continued his close - minded spiel by saying that genetic mutation of microscopic organisms over a long line of generations did not constitute evolution even when it allowed the microorganism in question to harness a new food source. This was observable evidence that he discounted in the debate without even giving a reason as to why he was doing so. It is simple, he was uncomfortable, and so he chose to ignore it.

Ken Ham also implies that secular world - views are lacking in morality. His casual remark that a secular person would euthanize older generations to make way for younger ones was truly sickening to behold. If I remember correctly, scientific theories never asked a parent for the sacrifice of their children. Ken Ham may not believe that elder people can contribute creatively to the world, but most academics value experience quite a lot.

Last but not least, let us all examine the quality of the evidence. Bill Nye based his case on peer-reviewed material backed up by years of research by thousands of scientists each questioning one another until they arrived at a point where they were confident that all the evidence lined up and pointed to a particular answer being true. Ken Ham on the other hand based his arguments on a self - contradictory document created by a handful of ancient religious figures without any accountability or testing using modern equipment. This same document, which he holds so dear, would have us believe that the world is flat and that the sun rotates around it.

Science is not about faith; it is about the truth. Nothing is admitted as a theory without rigourous testing and continuous refinement. Science simply does not allow for the arrogance that religion has. It does not try to monopolize truth and morality. It simply observes, infers, understands and unravels the mysteries that all religions have guarded with their ignorance to remain in a position of power.

I conclude by saying that Richard Dawkins is right not to debate creationists as it only gives their theories an air of validity that they haven't earned and do not deserve. In the end, all religions must be brushed aside if the human civilization is to survive over the long term. As the popular saying goes, "Don't argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and then defeat you with experience". Ken Ham is an extremely experienced person (and Bill Nye learned 'something' from him).