Part 3. Originally Posted Feb 4, 2014
I decided to discuss this issue second because I figured it would be the more humorous of the two and not contain as much controversy. However, as I have fleshed out the discussion with various acquaintances of mine, I have encountered a surprising amount of emotion and passion concerning it. It is ironic. The concept of a farce is considered by many to be an old fashioned form of humor that few still appreciate and even fewer understand. It would seem, though, that we have succeeded in creating a real life farce right under our noses, nonetheless. It is complete with drama, comedy, buffoonery, and, like any decent farce, fully capable of being described as a ludicrously improbable situation.
Allow to me to introduce the subject matter. As I am typing this, an auditorium is being prepared to house a debate. This debate, like many before it, will be on the subject of creation and evolution. There will be one big difference, however. This debate will feature Bill Nye “the Science Guy”. Since his successful run on PBS, Bill has appeared on numerous TV specials and YouTube videos doing what he does best; wearing outlandish bowties, looking like a nerd, and explaining some scientific concept to viewers. He also has been increasingly in the press for his comments regarding evolution and its critics. Bill was featured in a YouTube video in 2012 where he stated that teaching creationism to children is harmful. After nearly half a million comments to the video were posted, he was unexpectedly confronted by Ken Ham, CEO of the creation museum in Petersburg, KY, as well as the founder of the organization “Answers in Genesis”. Mr Ham challenged Nye to a debate on the merits of creationism and Bill (again, unexpectedly) accepted. The debate’s theme is “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” and is set to begin at 7 pm on Tuesday, February 4th.
I have some strongly flavored thoughts on this upcoming debate that I think would be a bit more palatable if we first dig into the background of these two individuals a little bit. Let’s start with Ken Ham.
Originally from Australia, Ken Ham moved to America in 1987 and founded “Answers in Genesis” in 1994. The goal of the organization is to defend and uphold the teachings of the biblical book of Genesis as part of a greater defense of Christianity. Through AiG, Ken has built a 75,000-sq-ft creation museum in Kentucky with plans to construct a full scale replica of Noah’s ark. Ken has become perhaps the most prominent promoter of creationism in the country, with frequent appearances on Christian television and radio shows. He has also made a name for himself as a Christian apologist and author, and has appeared on networks like FOX, ABC, CNN, PBS, and BBC. As far as education, allow me to quote Ken’s own posted bio: “Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia. He also holds a diploma of education from the University of Queensland (a graduate qualification necessary for Ken to begin his initial career as a science teacher in the public schools in Australia).” He also has been awarded four honorary Doctorates for his contributions to the worldwide church.
At this point, it would be useful to clarify something. Ken Ham is a straight creationist. This should not be confused with the term “intelligent design.” There are a growing number of scientists whose faith in established evolutionary theory has been shaken due to independently gathered research which, to them, indicates the existence of a higher intelligence. These are respected men and women of their field who often remain soft-spoken about their views, for fear of ridicule. The concept of intelligent design requires no belief system, nor does it necessarily attempt to discard all of evolution. It is simply a box in which to put scientific observations that deviate from the status quo and attempt to provide a reason for them. There are a variety of interpretations for this data that I will not get into today. I will say, however, that the discussion of intelligent design is not only a valid one, but can be addressed from multiple angles (ei scientifically, philosophically) using quantifiable data to produce measurable results. That being said, Ken Ham does not promote intelligent design; he is a creationist. This means he promotes as a scientific theory the concept of creation as described in the first Chapter of Genesis. 
What does this mean? It means that there is virtually nothing that Ham can hope to accomplish by this debate. Why? Because creation is not a scientific theory. It is a set of beliefs directly dictated by verses from the Bible. As critics often point out, creationism resembles the game-show jeopardy in that it works backwards to known scientific method. Where science is supposed to start with evidence that leads to new conclusions, creationism starts with conclusions and attempts to collect new evidence for them. Considering that this is the practice many creationists accuse modern evolutionists of doing, you can start to see the elements of farce that I’m referring to. Ken Ham is not only a creationist, he is a radical one; so much so that he has actually had some difficulty keeping ties with other creationist groups due to the level of dedication he has towards his somewhat singular interpretation of the accounts of Genesis. Contrary to Ham’s claims, there is no obvious, universal way to translate the creation story into scientific terms. There are many ideas and hypotheses surrounding the events presented in Genesis. Critics of creation claim, however, that the only reason such theories exist is not because of independent evidence, but because the claims of the Bible necessitated them.
When seen in this light, we can clearly observe why the claims of Ken Ham have already negated anything he could hope to accomplish through this debate. He can’t even get all creationists on board with his interpretations of a book they all claim to believe in, and yet he is scheduled to attempt to defend their viability to a man who clearly does not. Imagine the members of the Westboro Baptist church attempting to explain why condoning homosexuality is not productive for America. How many people do you think would listen? How many people’s opinions would be swayed? Ken Ham is in a similar situation. He is on the fringe of the fringe when it comes to his views on creation. He seeks to earn the country’s respect for creationism and thus for all of Christianity. What he will discover is that the only thing he’s defending by the end of the night will be himself.
This next section will not just be about one man. It will be about a man and the the man he wishes he was. Bill Nye grew up in Washington, DC. After graduating from College with an engineering degree, Bill went to work for Boeing in Seattle, Washington. After a bizarre string of events, Bill made the switch from engineering to comedy, quitting his job at Boeing to work full time as a writer and performer on Seattle television’s “Almost Live”. Through his connections on the show, Bill went on to create several TV shows of his own, the most famous of which was “Bill Nye, the Science Guy”. In five years, the show won 18 Emmy awards, with Bill alone earning seven of them. Since the show went off the air, Bill has continued to host and appear on TV shows, video projects, news stations, and even had a short stint on ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars”. He currently serves as the vice president of The Planetary Society; the largest space interest group in the world. He holds a Bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University and has been awarded three honorary Doctorates including one from Johns Hopkins.
Now it’s time to clarify something in regards to Bill Nye. If Ken Ham is on the fringe of the fringe of acceptable scientific thought regarding the origins of the universe, then Bill would certainly be considered the “monkey in the middle”, so to speak. He has repeatedly demonstrated both on his shows and since that he fully supports the views regarding the universe’s origins that are put out by the established scientific community. While this may garner more respect from the general public, it is ultimately, in my opinion, a naive and small minded way of looking at science. This would be more forgivable if Bill Nye was the one coming up with any of this research but he isn’t. He is simply repeating what he has been taught. Even the criticisms he uses against creationists and intelligent design theorists are not original. The sad truth of the matter is that, at some point in the last ten years, Bill Nye decided he was Carl Sagan.
Perhaps it would be useful to demonstrate just who Carl Sagan was and what he has to do with Bill Nye. Carl Sagan was perhaps the most celebrated and influential astrophysicist of the 20th century. He not only worked with NASA on virtually every planetary project through the 50’s and 60’s, but he briefed the astronauts who went to the moon in person. He received more medals, awards, and accolades than could be reasonably cited in this paper and for very good reasons. For one, Carl Sagan had two Bachelors degrees, a Master’s, as well as a Doctorate (a real one) in astronomy and astrophysics. For another, he single handedly changed the world’s entire understanding of the solar system and brought planetary exploration decades forward. He was also a well-known naturalist, humanist, and skeptic, subscribing to a form of agnostic atheism that was careful not to draw many conclusions but rather to simply ask the right questions. 
There are a few other things about Carl Sagan that I find interesting, however. For one, after he lectured at Harvard, he moved to Cornell University. As a full professor, he directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies. He was Bill Nye’s professor. Ironically enough, Bill even quotes him purposefully in the same YouTube video that he bashes creationists. Remember that “Planetary Society” that Bill Nye is vice president of? The original president and co-founder was Carl Sagan. It is also interesting to note that many of Sagan’s personal traits and qualities, like naturalism and the love of education, have been imitated by Nye so passionately that his bio on his website dedicates entire paragraphs to whatever he has done that pertains to them. Finally, we have Nye’s gutsy arguments, all of which are modified forms of statements already made by Sagan decades ago and repeated many times by people like Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson. Once again, we see a situation that is reminiscent of days long gone. Unfortunately for everyone, Bill Nye is not Carl Sagan. He is a television personality with a Bachelors degree who probably wishes now that he’d have gone to graduate school before getting into late night comedy. 
The distinction between Sagan and Nye is so significant that it changes the very dynamic and effectiveness of Bill Nye’s views. One of the reasons that Carl Sagan was so influential when it came to his views on God and spirituality was because he was uniquely qualified to comment on matters of the cosmos. Who would you be more likely to trust: a certified map-reader, or the man who explored the region to start with and then designed the map? Carl Sagan was looking at a much bigger picture of the universe than those around him were and he didn’t see God. It is interesting to note that Bill Nye is considerably more outspoken than Sagan was on issues that Sagan knew twice as much about! Like many modern scientists, Bill Nye has fallen into the trap of mistaking the establishment of science for the true art of science.
As any decent historian will tell you, sometimes the last place that you will find actual history is in the history books. In the same way that history goes to the victors, modern science goes to the funded. Many people quip about the differences between futuristic sci-fi portrayals of the future and the realities of the period when it actually gets here. I sometimes have wondered myself “After all of the movies about floating cars, why don’t we have them yet?” I have come to understand that the progress of science is held back, no longer by religion, but by money and politics. A few years ago, I was shopping at a vitamin store for some sort of natural ADHD treatment. I knew I needed something but I wasn’t too thrilled about going back on medication. What I stumbled on was a supplement which had originally undergone studies to be used as an ADHD medication but lost its funding before it got off the ground. ADHD was not such a huge priority in the 70’s when the study took place. This product has been sold as a dietary supplement ever since, often getting lost among the numerous other fish oil supplements only to be rediscovered a few years ago, probably due to the increasing problem of ADHD and other related conditions. you can now find it in the front of the store in several different doses. This is a product that could have been put to better use on the market 40 years ago! Imagine how far behind we are in other areas simply due to money and politics. If anyone doubts my logic on this point, do some research on the advances made in regards to lunar research and see how they relate to NASA’s funding at the time. The reality of established science is a world which hasn’t cured some of the oldest known diseases that kill millions of people every year in the developing world (ie HIV/AIDS, ebola, malaria) yet has somehow come up with billions of dollars to build a giant particle accelerator in Europe with the sole purpose of trying to re-create the conditions of the “Big Bang”.
I would like to wrap up this section with some thoughts regarding both Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Now that we have a better picture of these two men, we can really see the farce coming into play. This debate is one that has been going on for over 100 years and has been contributed to by some of the greatest scientific and theological minds of our time. Why, then, are we so excited to hear the completely polarized opinions of two men with Bachelor's degrees and oversized egos? These men are neither pioneers of modern established thought, nor are they experts in their fields. In our attempts to revive the glory days of evolution vs creationism; science vs faith, we have chosen celebrity spokespersons who are simply not up for the task. Ken Ham will likely never believe anything that God doesn’t tell him personally, and Bill Nye isn’t likely to accept anything that isn’t endorsed (and funded) by mainstream western science.
In conclusion, I will leave you with what I believe may be the most obvious demonstration of the pointlessness of this debate. As I mentioned before, the theme of the debate is “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” Think about that for a moment. How will discussing that subject have any affect on society? If we were going to discuss the politics surrounding the opinions and practices of the public education system or even compare evolution and intelligent design side by side with the findings of modern archeology and paleontology, we might actually accomplish something. But no. Instead, we will be watching a three hour debate that will be streaming to over a million people on the subject of defending the religious concept of creationism to a diehard secular humanist. If I didn’t know any better, I would think this was a government project for all of its productivity.
(This post was originally made before the debate took place. If you would like to watch the full debate, I have included a link below. I think my predictions were fairly accurate.)
No comments:
Post a Comment