Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: First Thoughts

There's a new video up on my YouTube channel in which I discuss the recent Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye creationism debate.  In fact, I’ll probably be making it a small series so that I can review the various facets of the debate, parse it out, and give my thoughts on it.

First off, what is it good debate?

Well, I thought it was a good thing.  It wasn't really a debate, and to his credit Bill Nye didn't engage a lot of Ken Ham's bungled rhetoric.  It might have been better (and certainly more entertaining) to watch the two debaters address each other's points directly, and though they both did on occasion, the format didn't really make for that sort of thing.

I know a few people have reviewed it saying it was amazing and the best they’ve ever seen.  I don’t agree. I think the Science Guy did a decent job of stating, "science works, so kids, go learn it" and Ham’s main point was "the Bible is 100% true, can't tell me otherwise".

I think it was good for the public to get a refresher in science.  My favorite parts were when Bill explained how we know what we know.  I think that for debates like these -- especially where people are advising against debating creationists or conspiracy nut jobs because it makes them appear on equal footing when they’re not -- a good thing for the public in general.  Look, 31% of people in this country say that their faith directly influences how they vote.  And the percentage of people in this country who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God: 22%.  So when you have a debate like this, where you’re at the creation museum and perhaps a large percentage of the audience is fundamental theists, when you explain how science works and how we know the facts we know, it’s likely the first time a lot of them are hearing it, and it can sway a lot of minds.   

Bill didn’t do that often, he just assumed people would look things up and stated them as fact, but the few times he explained, those were my favorite times.  Lawrence Krauss’s talk at FreeOK 2013 was awesome and I realize Bill couldn’t possibly give a complete science lecture, but it might have been better if he did.  Just give a quick remedial science lesson to the room and recap here’s why we believe the Big Bang, here’s why we believe Evolution, here’s why we trust and use the scientific method.  Because again, I doubt many people really understand these concepts because of how poorly science is taught.  

I know I didn’t fully grasp it when I was in high school because it was presented as, science is a collection of facts and figures along with the other subjects where you just memorize and parrot back.  Here’s how long division works, here’s how cellular mitosis works.  Here’s how a circular saw works, here’s how volcanoes work.  There was never any emphasis on the method and how we use science as a tool, it was just about, "Here’s the way the world works, if you’re interested in it, go into a scientific field"…much like, "Here’s how a lawn mower engine works, if you’re interested in that, become a mechanic."

I didn’t intend this to be a full review, just a few bits on what I thought about it overall.  At least it was good to get the scientific point out there again (it seems we need to do that every few years), Bill didn’t really have to do anything other than state facts and let Ken Ham destroy himself with statements like “I’m starting from a viewpoint that the bible is a true account of history” and “there is no hypothetical situation in which he could be wrong”.  I mean, at that point you can’t do anything to debate against that besides what Bill did, which was state scientific fact and tell people, we know these things, now go learn about it before the United States gets left behind!

-STA

Grand Designs

Since I've decided to make a new effort to blog again, I've been reviewing some old drafts and talking points that have been accruing dust.  Yesterday, I came across a post that I never got around to finishing.  It was written when Ray Comfort called into the Atheist Experience show near the end of March in 2011.  I just heard that Matt and Ray are supposed to debate again this coming Friday, and since this is the eve of the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham "debate", I thought it fitting to finish up the post for you.


Bananas!
As I press play on a video of the Atheist Experience TV show, I find myself reaching for a stress ball.  This is a special episode in which evangelist Ray Comfort calls the program.  I'm familiar with Ray and his favorite arguments for the god of the bible, and I'm more than certain he's going to use one that falls into the category of PRATT (Previously Refuted A Thousand Times).

Sure enough, Ray began his argument from design right out of the gate.  In Ray's view, anyone who has a brain and eyes should be able to look around at the world and see design.  How this apparent design points to his particular god is still a mystery, but the flaws to this argument are not.

And while you might think I'm about to list all the reasons why this argument is flawed, I'm not (you can find those on your own).  Instead, I'm actually going to -- for the sake of this post -- concede that nature has been designed.

"STA, have you lost your godless mind?!" No, no yet anyway.  But if we analyze this "designer" vis-à-vis its "design" we can examine the aptitude of this being.  It's irrelevant if this designer is the god of the Bible or the Qur'an, Zeus, Baal, FSM, or shape-shifting lizard men from the Andromeda galaxy.  If we assume that whoever created and/or designed life as it exists on our planet was indeed a conscious designer (or group of designers) that has a mind either dependent or independent of a body, we can examine its work and know it, as Matthew 7:20 states.

I Don't Need No Proof
I'm a somewhat musician and I love to sing and strum to a variety of songs, several of which come from a band called Live.  (At the time of writing, Live has disbanded and apparently the lead singer has now fully embraced Christianity.)  My guitar-playing buddy and I used to cover one of their songs entitled Heaven, whose chorus lyrics are:

I don't need no one to tell me about heaven
I look at my daughter, and I believe.
I don't need no proof when it comes to God and truth
I can see the sunset and I perceive.

I have to admit that once I truly became aware of my disbelief in a god, I could no longer perform this song -- even though I still perform many songs that reference ideas about heaven, god, angels, etc.  This song embodies the argument from design (in some ways a subset of the argument from ignorance) so completely that I can't bring myself to perform it for people.  It's still a good song in its own right, with a great hook, catchy melody, and it's well performed as many of Live's songs are.  But the narrator of the song (and now the actual singer, apparently) believes that God exists because things like sunsets and babies are beautiful.

Pay No Attention to the Flesh-Eating Bacteria

This kind of argument is put forth almost every time I ask a theist to give me reasons why they believe in god.  The response usually goes something like, "Look at the trees, birds, and the magnificence of a baby's eye and tell me how you don't believe in a god!"

But what about the very unpleasant in the world: ichneumon wasps, childhood leukemia, necrotizing fasciitis.  It's always amazing to me that I have to point out this bald-faced cherry picking of nature.  They might say, "look at this wonderful flower!  Only a God could have made it!" and then I turn over the flower and find ten kinds of bug that can kill you ten different, horrible ways.  Where's the credit go then?

Were we to examine the enumerations of our world's supposedly grand designs, we would see that a better design could be easily proposed.  Neil deGrasse Tyson said it well:

As Mr. Tyson points out, the world doesn't seem designed with us in mind.  Indeed, even our own bodies are lacking when it comes to functionality.  There are a myriad of ways to die without the aid of external forces, such as choking to death.

The theistic claims generally rest upon the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing designer, and the fact that we, a supposedly fallible and broken creation, could suggest a design that is better than "perfect" should be a red flag.

It is not hubris to claim that the designer could have done better.  For the "designer" is blind.

The Blind Watchmaker
Nature has been designed -- by nature herself.  The puddle of rain was not designed for the divot in which it rests.  The hand was not designed for the glove.  Creationists too oftentimes put the cart before the horse.  Had enough metaphor yet?

The "designer" simply used the tools that were available, molding and shaping fauna and flora by jerry-rigging haphazardly working with what it has.  It's like giving a child a set of blocks and telling him to build various things with them. Whereas the child is given only a finite number of blocks, a truly omnipotent designer wouldn't have to stick with the pool of resources to create, it could simply create from nothing the parts it needed.

Only in reality, the "designer" is mindless.  There is no direction or goal to the design.  It's not a true design in the sense that we know it, and that's one of the main problems with the watchmaker argument, a favorite of Ray's.  But we can look around and easily see how much of the universe isn't designed for us.  We can examine ourselves and discover problems with our parts and systems as a whole.  We see design because life works and we're used to thinking that things can't work unless they are created with a goal to do so.

If a designer made nature, it could have done better.  Fortunately, we have found that by putting the evidence first -- not the conclusion that we are designed -- we find life changing and evolving without the need of a designer.  The results look designed, but only in the same sense that the puddle looks designed for the hole it lands in.

I Look At My Daughter
Even if evolution were to somehow be disproved, some kind of intelligent designer wouldn't automatically win the top spot for explanation.  Instead it must be proven on its own merits that this designer made things like trees, birds, cholera, and eyeballs.

Since the time of this writing, I have had a daughter.  The first time I saw her, I was filled with emotion and love.  She was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen.  Now, looking back at this post, I'm reminded of those lyrics in the song.  I don't need anyone to tell me a god designed us.  I look at my daughter, and I perceive the little shifts that life took, over millions of years, to "design" such a wonderful thing.  To claim that a god poofed her into existence is to deny facts and evidence we've gathered through diligent study, not reading from a book.  And we I look upon a sunset, I believe that humanity can and will learn more through the use of science and the eschewing of religion and ideas of intelligent designers.

But I'll admit my version's not as catchy.


-STA

Rebirth

Wow.  Nine posts in two years?  And the last one, in 2013, didn't even mention the end of the world?

Sad, I know.  But life has found a way to make me put down my mouth-peace to the world.  I've been raising my first child, and we are expecting another any day now.  I haven't forgotten about you though, and I peruse the news feeds and videos almost daily, but have found that I like playing outside with my daughter more than face-palming to the latest theistic nonsense.  Taking care of a child is hard work, and like I said, I'm about to start the entire process all over again.

However, I've been entertaining the idea of jumping in again.  Slowly at first, mind you...but part of me misses the communities, camaraderie, and combat here.  So expect to see a few more posts from me in the very near future.  But be warned -- I'll likely be suffering from lack of sleep.  Brace yourself for louder-than-usual rants.

-STA

Day in the Life: An Unexpected Outing

Hello again, all.  I apologize for not posting lately, but I'm hoping to start back up soon.  I just wanted to let you all know that everyone here's doing fine, and today was a special day.  No, not just Zombie Jesus Day -- today, my wife came out to her family (specifically, her mom, dad, grandma, and grandpa)! 

There's only so much a person can take around holiday get-together with elderly people and their narrow-minded views, and she spur-of-the-moment told them that she's an atheist.  They didn't shun her or ask too many questions either, and now that the announcement has been made, we can expect it to get around the rest of the family and open the doors of conversation -- and hopefully, understanding.  At the very least they won't spout off things like, "it's the atheists who are trying take Jesus out of everything because they all hate him".

So congratulations my dear.  I love you.


-STA

A Horseman Falls

Life is keeping me busy and while I do plan to make future posts, I'm not entirely certain when.

Tonight I just wanted to put up a small, mournful post regarding the death of Christopher Hitchens.  I'm not sure what I could add to the outpouring of remembrance posts that have flooded the internet since his death last night, except to say that I'm sorry I never got to met him.  Hitch was an extraordinary influence on me during the time I began my road to recovery, as it were.  He had such a captivating grasp of language and could craft a sentence that made my budding intellectual mind hum with intrigue.  I've always wanted to be able to spontaneously generate such cogent strings of words like Hitchens could.  Not only was he a great speaker, his arguments were -- are -- among the best presently available, and I doubt a similar figure will appear in my lifetime.  I'm thankful to Hitch for being in the right place for me at the right time, and for delivering a wealth of counterpoints and kernels of thought that I'll can always go back to and study.  We'll always have his work.

So tonight I'll raise a glass in remembrance of Hitch, an eloquent speaker and a wonderful human.

-STA