[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).