Today I’ll post four short postmortem analyses of the Nye/Ham debate on evolution vs. creationism, all from different venues.

I talked several times to Sudeshna Chowdhury, a science writer at the Christian Science Monitor who produced a postmortem analysis of the Big Debate in her paper: “Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: Who won?” While it quotes Professor Ceiling Cat, you already know that stuff, and most of the article’s contents also summarize what you already know if you watched or followed the debate. What interested me, however, was Ms. Chowdhury’s interviews with creationists, which reveal a schism in that movement as well as a nonconvincing rationalization by the faithful of Ham’s performance.

One scientific correction first: Chowdhury quotes me about the ways to check the accuracy of radiometric dating:

“The debate was Ham’s to win and he lost. And the debate was Nye’s to lose and he won,” Dr. Coyne told the Monitor. Nye missed some great opportunities and if he was on top of his game, he could have really called Mr. Ham out, he says.

For example – Ham is simply wrong in saying that there’s no way to test whether radiometric dating is accurate. “We have ways to cross check radiometric dating,” he says.

Independent checks on radiometric dating include studies of coral deposits, plate tectonics, the periodic reversal of the Earth’s magnetic fields, and the slowing of the Earth’s rotation.

This is all true, and there are many other ways as well (for a cogent summary of the various methods, go here).  But I was referring specifically to the isochron method, whereby different minerals in the same igneous rock serve not only as a cross-check on each other’s dates (and invariably agree), but also take into account the possibility that different minerals were formed with different amount of parent isotopes (these “criticisms” were mentioned by Ham in the debate). For a description of the isochron analysis, go here.  It’s actually quite a clever method, and not hard to understand. Remember that radiometric dating for old samples is done almost entirely using igneous rocks, while fossils form in sedimentary rocks, so fossils are usually dated using adjacent igneous material.

But that aside, here are a few statement from Chowdhury’s piece. First, Michael Behe is predictably butthurt that Ham ignored Intelligent Design, many of whose advocates don’t agree with Ham’s Biblical literalism or belief in a young earth:

“I was upset that both the parties kept talking on about the age of the Earth than on the elegance and complexities of life,” says Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University and an advocate of Intelligent Design, a form of creationism that rejects a literal biblical view of origins, but asserts that there exist ‘irreducibly complex’ biological structures, such as protein transport mechanisms, that point to their creation by an intelligent entity. Dr. Behe is one of the few proponents of this view to hold a position in the biology department of an accredited university in the United States.

“I think neither of them did too well,” he said.

Poor Behe! He and his views were not publicized. I would love to see someone like Behe debate someone like Ham. Now wouldn’t it be fascinating to see two forms of creationists fighting about whose interpretation of the Bible was correct (Behe, of course, would try to leave the Bible out of it, for IDer pretend to be agnostic about the identity of the Great Designer)? But I doubt we’ll ever see such a debate, for the old- and young-earth creationists have a greater interest in promoting their common belief in God and Jesus than in squabbling about who created what and when.

One preacher even suggests that Ham threw the debate out of a Jesus-inspired love of his opponent. Now how many of you believe that?:

Ezra Byer, blogging for the website Powerline Kingdom Ministries, a site that seeks to [Use] the Power of Media to Display Jesus, Develop Disciples, and Deepen Lives” argued that Ham lost the debate in the narrow sense, by failing to provide compelling factual reasons for why he held is views, but won it in a larger sense by raising awareness of biblical creationism, emphasizing the importance of a 6,000-year-old Earth, and preaching the Gospel to a large audience.

Byer suspects that Ham may have even thrown the game on purpose. He writes: ” As I watched Mr. Ham’s mannerisms, you could sense a tremendous Spirit about him. He was gracious and the power of God showed through his life. There were multiple times I believed he could have hammered Nye on some of his inconsistencies but in my opinion chose not to.”

God softened Pharaoh’s heart!!

Finally, there’s some undiluted criticism of Ham from his fellow religionists (Don Boys, described as a “strong, fundamental Baptist preacher who believes that the Word of God will produce character in people who hear and obey its teachings,” is probably a Biblical literalist):

Even those who thought Ham won the debate say the Creation Museum founder could have done much better. Don Boys, the author of “The God Haters: Shallow Scholars, Silly Scientists, Pagan Preachers, and Embattled Evolutionists Declare War on Christians!” [exclamation point in original] said Ham won but didn’t hit a “grand slam.” He criticized Ham for getting drawn into a discussion about the precise age of the Earth and the construction of Noah’s Ark. Still, writes Dr. Boys, “this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan.”

The problem is that Ham could hardly have avoided being drawn into such a discussion, given that he was supposed to be defending his model of origins, which is literalist. How do you do that without mentioning a young eEarth and Noah’s ark as the mechanism for species preservation and a source of ancestors for post-Ark “microevolution”?

As for Ken Ham being far more informed than William Jennings Bryan, that’s only the case because science has raised more facts that Ham has to sidestep.  Bryan, in fact, wasn’t a young-earth creationist (he waffled on the issue at Dayton), making him less extreme in that respect than is Ham.

There’s no need for me to reprise this short but informative piece by NBC News‘s science editor Alan Boyle, so go read “Bill Nye wins over the science crowd at evolution debate.” Your host is quoted, but there are two more interesting parts of the piece. One is the tw**t below, reflecting something I’m sorry I missed: Ham’s claim that no evidence could change his mind about the Biblical-literalist view of biology. It’s by Dan Arel, who writes for the Dawkins Foundation and originally thought that Nye shouldn’t debate Ham:

Ham made a serious error when he said that—one that will come back to haunt him!

And a bit of dissent, which I predicted, from the old-earth creationists (i.e., Intelligent Designoids); this is from the NBC piece:

Tuesday’s debate dwelled on Genesis and didn’t consider alternatives to evolutionary theory that are less overtly biblical — such as old-Earth creationism or intelligent design. That led Casey Luskin, an advocate for intelligent design at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, to characterize the event as a “huge missed opportunity”:

“People will walk away from this debate thinking, ‘Ken Ham has the Bible, Bill Nye has scientific evidence,'” Luskin wrote on the institute’s Evolution News blog. “Some Christians will be satisfied by that. Other Christians (like me) who don’t feel that accepting the Bible requires you to believe in a young earth will feel that their views weren’t represented.”

And here’s a Christian making excuses for Ham, proving his lameness:

On the creationist side of the fence, Ham drew strong support on the day after the debate. “The debate was how viable is teaching of creation in today’s world, and from that perspective I would give Ken Ham the victory,” one commenter said on Ham’s Facebook page. Another wrote, “Yes, maybe somebody else could have done a better job on defending creation, but maybe God was more interested in people hearing the gospel message! And on that note Ken Ham did a great job.”

Translation: “Ham might have not done so well, but he sure could praise Jesus!”

Finally, reader Barry sent some amusing tw**ts from a dialogue in which he participated:

FYI, The New Republic has published (with no alterations this time) my post mortem analysis of the Ham/Nye debate, which they’ve called “Bill Nye won last night’s creationism debate.” You may have already read it, but if you want the content here to keep being conveyed to a different audience over there, do give them a click.

Remember that tonight is the big debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which promises to be a lot more entertaining than the Super Bowl.  So make your nachos, crack a brewski, and watch the debate (livestreamed here) at 7 pm U.S. Eastern Standard Time (that’s midnight in England, 11 a.m. in Sydney). The topic is this: “Is creation a viable model of origins?”

As I’ve mentioned, I don’t think this debate is a good idea for Nye. First, the issue is settled: evolution is a fact. Issues that are more congenial for real debate—that provoke true thought—are those involving opinion rather than pure fact, issues like politics, abortion, war, and so on. Second, giving creationists a place on the platform with evolutionists (or respected science educators like Nye) simply gives creationism credibility. It’s like putting a famous geologist up against a flat-earther to debate the question, “Is the earth really flat?” What’s the point?

Further, these debates are exercises not in education but in rhetoric, and that’s not the way for the public to adjudicate scientific issues. I have been a bit worried that Nye simply isn’t sufficiently “up” on the data supporting evolution, though (despite his t.v. experience), sufficiently eloquent to debate a preacher like Ham. Finally, if Nye wants to really promote evolution, I’d urge him not to debate creationists, but to write articles and speak to the public—singly, and not in a debate forum—about evolution. That’s what most of the rest of us do when we’re in “public education” mode.

If that weren’t enough, this event is going to make money to support creationism. The proceeds, except, I suspect, minus whatever fee Nye gets, will go to support the Creation Museum, and Ham as well as other creationist organizations are selling DVDs of the video. Even if Nye somehow “wins” the debate, the dosh will still go to support what he hates: peddling lies about science to kids.

Meanwhile, the Lexington Herald-Leader, a paper in Kentucky, has published this cartoon by Joel Pett, and it’s not favorable to Ham’s side:

In the meantime, if you want to do some last-minute boning up, Professor Ceiling Cat has done the legwork for you, finding something to read or watch with each of his four paws:

***

Alan Boyle, the science editor of NBC News, has a piece on “Will evolution debate blow up in the Science Guy’s face? It’s debatable?” Like many of these pieces (and I’ve talked to four reporters about this in the last week), it’s concerned largely with scientists and others who don’t think Nye—or any science educator or scientist—should be debating creationists.

Boyle quotes Professor C.C. in extenso, repeating my opinion that Nye shouldn’t be debating any creationist. But I was most interested in the principal’s preparation:

[Nye] said he’s been preparing for the debate by consulting with experts via email and studying how Ham and other creationists have stated their case in past forums. . . Ham is preparing as well — in consultation with creation-minded colleagues who have Ph.D.s, such as molecular biologist Georgia Purdum and geologist Andrew Snelling. Like Nye, Ham is researching his opponent’s past statements on evolution. And like Nye, Ham says he’s doing this debate to reach the next generation.

Consulting experts by email is not, to my mind, the best way to prepare for such a debate, though it’s good to read what Ham has said in the past.

Ham also notes that he’s had only one formal creation/evolution debate in his career; this is a deliberate attempt to lower expectations.

Finally, I was interested that criticism of this debate has come not just from people like me, but from advocates of Intelligent Design:

Even among folks who insist there’s evidence that the universe was designed by some sort of intelligent being, such views don’t always sit well. Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and the author of “Darwin’s Doubt” sees pluses as well as minuses to Tuesday’s debate.

“It’s a plus because it generates interest in the topic,” Meyer told NBC News. “It’s a minus because it inhibits an understanding of the complexity of the issue.”

Meyer worries that the debate over evolution will be portrayed as Darwinian materialism vs. biblical literalism — leaving out such ideas as theistic evolution, old-earth creationism and his own perspective, intelligent design. “It would be really terrific if the proponents of the mainstream Darwinian view of origins engaged some of the other critics of their theory, who see evidence of design in nature but are not biblical fundamentalists,” he said.

It would be great if we could somehow get the young-earth creationists to go up against the IDers, deflecting their attention from us. But given that IDers have allowed young-earth creationists like Paul Nelson into their tent, that seems unlikely.

Boyle will be in Kentucky for the debate, and I presume will file a piece afterwards. Stay tuned.

***

Similar themes crop up in a piece by Kimberly Winston at the Religion News Service: “Ham-on-Nye debate pits atheists, creationists.” The usual suspects oppose the debate:

“Scientists should not debate creationists. Period,” wrote Dan Arel on the Richard Dawkins Foundation’s website. “There is nothing to debate.”

Arel, a secular advocate, is echoing the position of Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist who has long refused to debate creationists.

“Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to,” Dawkins said in 2006. “For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist.”

But accommodationists also oppose it, though on different grounds:

“It is this huge stereotype that all Christians reject science and an event like this reinforces that stereotype,” said Deborah Haarsma, president of the BioLogos Foundation, an organization whose motto is “science and faith in harmony.” “It looks like science versus Christianity and it ignores the people who have accepted the science of evolution and have not let go of their faith. . .“A debate like this sets up a false choice” between science and religion for viewers, Haarsma said. “We don’t want them to have to choose.”

Well, if you’re intellectually consistent, you really do have to choose between superstition (and that includes what many at BioLogos espouse—theistic or God-guided evolution) and rationality. You don’t have to choose between science and religion only if you’re a pantheist or someone who maintains that God doesn’t really do anything; but if you’re a deist, a theist, or anyone who believes in a supernatural being or force that actually does something in the cosmos, you have to choose—or suffer cognitive dissonance.

***

Indeed, Nye is taking what I call the Weasel Approach: he’s an agnostic because he “can’t know” whether God exists.  Yes, and we also can’t know absolutely whether Bigfoot, Nessie, and UFOs exist, either, so is Nye “agnostic” about those issues, too? He should just admit he’s an atheist, which would be great for the cause, or not waffle in this way. In fact, the interviewer describes a much more cogent distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

But I urge you to watch Nye’s discussion of the ape-human “similarity of DNA” at the end, which starts about 2 minutes in. He completely screws that up, claiming that we have 2-3% genetic differences from  chimps, and asks whether organisms that had 0% ”chimp sequence” be like gods to us, even more intelligent than humans with DNA that resembles those of other apes.

That’s completely bogus. Not only is that diatribe without a point, but it’s wrong. Yes, we have DNA and protein-sequence similarity to chimps, but that doesn’t mean that if we replaced those similar amino acids or DNA bases with different ones, we could be “more” human, or as Nye hypothesizes, like “gods.”  But those genetic similarities do not mean that we carry “chimp DNA” that prevents us from being even more godlike and awesome. The similarities, insofar as they function in making proteins, are what makes us human, for being human involves some morphological and functional similarities with other apes.

Listen to this Nye’s discussion yourself; that confusing biobabble worries me that Nye doesn’t even understand what it means to say that humans have a certain genetic similarity to our close primate relatives.  And that suggests that he’s not knowledegable enough to have a give-and-take debate about modern evolutionary biology. Further, as Gunnar noted, Nye is neither eloquent nor especially convincing.

Dr. Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, called the debate “pointless and counterproductive” in an article posted on his popular blog, Why Evolution Is True.

“If Nye wants to further acceptance of evolution, he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists,” he wrote. “By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform.”

Coyne’s comments echo those made by Dr. Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist and a public intellectual who has made it his policy to reject invitations to debate creationists.

“Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs,” Dawkins wrote in a 2006 article entitled Why I Won’t Debate Creationists. “But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.”

. . . Still, Coyne acknowledged his concern that Nye might run into trouble when he squares off against Ham at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. on Tuesday night. Coyne wrote on his blog that he was convinced Ham was preparing furiously for the “Ham on Nye” debate, adding that “I pray* that Nye is doing likewise.”

What’s the asterisk for? At the bottom of the post, Coyne–like Dawkins, an atheist–explained:

“I am praying metaphorically.”

I’ll be watching this, sans nachos, but probably with a good Lustau sherry and a fine cigar. Good luck to Nye, but I’m not hopeful.

h/t: Steven C., Roo, Gunnar, Steve

Not from me, but from the Secular Coalition of Australia. It’s hilarious. After the letter there’s an explanation of why it was written. Gotta love those Aussies!

(More on the Nye/Ham debate later.)

An open letter to Bill Nye, the Science Guy

Sunday 2^nd Feb 2014

Dear Bill,

We’re sorry. We’re really sorry.

We know how you American rationalists think of us Aussies. You think we’re all so busy clinging on to the bottom of the world with our fingertips that we don’t have time to waste concerning ourselves with silly creationist ideas – that we’re a haven of straightforward logical thinking, secular education, free healthcare and good-looking half-clothed beach bunnies.

But we’re really sorry, Bill – Ken Ham is our fault, and it’s time we took responsibility for him. We, the people of Australia, have allowed our zealots to escape to your fair shores. It’s not just Ham, either. Fine specimens like Gary Bates, who left for the forgiving climes of Georgia, still manages to send his tentacled pods back over the Pacific and feed our kids rubbish about how the earth is only 6000 years old – a particular head-scratcher for our Indigenous population, whose families have been here since 50,000 BCE. I mean, talk about breathtakingly rude.

We’ve been slack, Bill. Our practically secular society let us get complacent; we didn’t notice years ago, when the scripture classes that had slid in sideways last century were commandeered by proselytising evangelicals who set about “making disciples” of our children. We let slide our government handing over of wads of tax dollars to create a raft of fundamentalist religious schools who teach kids the kind of hogwash that you will have to endure from Ken Ham in your debate.  In fact, Bill, just this week, when Professor Marion Maddox nailed a copy of her exemplary new book Taking God To School to our doors, it was a stark reminder of just how much we’d let our secular-ish, sunburnt paradise go.  And now, any attempt to reverse the process has been met with squealing about “our Christian heritage” from people who often don’t understand either Christianity OR heritage.

To our shame, decades of preoccupation with things like Olympic medal tallies and football players has made Australia into the “Typhoid Mary” of Creationism: we were rubbishing America for its anti-evolutionists and didn’t even notice that we were the ones exporting young-earth evangelism to your great nation, where unfortunately there is no tariff on craziness. We are so, so sorry.

So on Tuesday, when you’re roasting the Ham and his patently ridiculous ideas on the rotisserie of logic, tell him you’ve got a message from Australia. Tell him from us that we used his state-issued Akubra hat to cover a hole in the national chookhouse shed, that he is no longer entitled to use his formal Australian name (Kenno) and that he is now forbidden any Tim Tams – ever again. Also, that whenever his name comes up at Christmas, while we sit around drinking white wine in the sun, there will be a formal awkward silence of twenty to forty seconds, until someone brightly offers everyone pudding. And if you could manage to kick him in the shins and tell him and his ilk to leave our kids alone, Bill – we’d owe you one.

Best Regards,

Secular Coalition of Australia (SECOA)
on behalf of the sensible people of Australia.

P.S. We take no responsibility for Ray Comfort. He’s a Kiwi.

h/t: Gregory

Reader Trey called my attention to the announcement, by Answers in Genesis, that the upcoming debate on evolution between Bill “The Science Guy” Nye and Ken “The Lyin’ Guy” Ham will be livestreamed, so you can all see it for free here. It is, of course, at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Date and time:  Tuesday, February 4 at 7 pm EST (US). Mark your calendars, as I expect that many of us will watch it (I will), and we can discuss our reactions.

In the meantime, Glenn Beck, in this very short excerpt from his television show (source: Right Wing Watch), compares Bill Nye and his sympathizers, who want to keep creationism out of schools, to the Catholic Church when it tried to censor Galileo. What the hell is he on about? Galileo was right and creationism is wrong.

The slur on Nye starts at 48 seconds in: