Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate - What can we take from it

One thing I've noted from proponents of evolution (well those that prominantly speak out) is the seemingly earnest belief that they're are no presuppositions that enter into the science. That there is a pure objectivity.

But no scientist is without a worldview, an a priori philosophy that infleuences the way they think. Infact these people often have a staunch materialist philosophy and ascribe science the ability to determine truth.

This brings me to the debate between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Ken Ham (of answers in genesis). I'd first like to refer to Albert Mohlers fantastic analysis of the debate:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central-worldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/

Mohler highlights the clash of worldviews of the two debaters.

Here's my thoughts:

Ken ham stuck to the YEC manifesto (I presonally would have liked to see mainly scienctific ideas debated, because I'm not sure how useful argiung for biblical authority is in that context, but that's is AIG's schtick so I guess it's not necessarily surprising). I enjoy wazooloos series on youtube for that reason: he primarily discusses scientific findings from a YEC point of view.

As for Bill Nye, I'd like to discuss his somewhat ideological and naive view on the purity and objectivity of scientifc pursuit.

He himself admits in the debate that there could be no evidence that would convince him of creation. Yet, at the same time insists there is no presupposition and has faith in the self correcting nature of science. However, when it comes to evolution, this most certainly isn't true. For any science, the less is relies on raw empirical data the less objective it is. All data is interpreted but there is only so much you can add your own slant to raw data.

Evolution has fossils (which apart from interpretation don't tell you anything except that an organism lived and no longer exists) the rest the theory projects onto the fossil (ie the fossil record represents the transition from simple to complex organisms from a common ancestor. But, that is not a given. You can assemble fossil data into an overall narrative, but that is by no means definitive. And the notion that all fossils confirm evolution is propaganda. Scientists find confounding discoveries routinely and the evolutionary narrative adapts in one way or another (the theory has so much flexibility to accommodate unexpected findings one has to question if it is meaningfully falsifiable).

I'd also like to bring up the ability of science to self correct. Its arguable that the current system makes paradigms extremely hard to budge, especially those sacred cows of the evolutionary narrative. Questioning of the sufficiency of neo Darwinian explanations to explain what is observed have been buried for years before dissent has been allowable. However, school textbooks continue to tow the line that all evidence points to the standard Darwinian narrative being correct, when this is no longer true.

A good example of evolution not correcting itself in favour of maintaining the narrative is the finding of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik. It was at the time an iconic find, a transitional form between fish and tetrapods found in rocks that predicted it would be. It was widely reported in the press. Yet years later, tetrapod footprints were found in rocks in Poland dating 20 million year earlier than Tiktaalik.

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat030621.html

 Yet rather than admit they were back to square one on tetrapod evolution, Tiktaalik is still trotted out as a transitional form inspite of the evidence now saying otherwise. Of course, there wasn't much media attention and the original discoverer of Tiktaalik is not so keen to relinquish the title of transitional form for Tiktaalik either.

Shutting down discussion of Intelligent Design rather than dealing with it critically

I've had a few blog posts stored up and wanted to post this one in light of the attack on ID over the course of this year.

This link describes but one example:
Free Thought Advocate Aggressively Shuts down course on ID

Ironic isn't it?

 I note a certain attitude of advocates for evolution in the public sphere to take a rather dogmatic approach to dealing with critics of evolution. It's as though any alternative to a naturalistic explanation is seen as a threat or dissent to science.

I think proponents of evolution over reach in their eagerness to champion the field. That the meta narrative of evolutionary theory is accepted by scientists shouldn't exclude critical examination of individual evidences and questioning of those individual pieces. These individual evidences in the literature are often challenged in time as new insight comes to light.

Therefore it strikes me as odd that there should be such a reaction when someone who identifies with intelligent design or creation, where the criticism is thrown aside in favour of ad hominem attacks. I have witnessed this in many forums including debates where those arguing for naturalistic evolution lean toward personal derision over mounting an evidential argument for evolution as if there job is already done.

Some evidences for evolution are very much open to interpretation and aren't without controversy. Teaching the controversy is an argument that many in the ID and creation camps advocate, but are met with quite strong resistance. There is no controversy the evolutionary advocates say. That seems to me to be a little dishonest. Many of the iconic findings for evolution have later come to be questioned in the literature, yet very rarely is this acknowledged in textbooks or in public discourse. We're talking everything from fossils said to be human-ape ancestors, junk dna and even the central mechanism of mutation and natural selection. My university textbook from 2002 was rather out of date in terms of discussion of particular evolutionary finds. Several of which have been found to be false, some even prior to the production of the textbook.

Instead of getting worked up about some anti-science push, lets enrich the conversation around our planets history and set aside largely philosophical antagonism towards those who think intelligent design is the best explanation for what we observe. 

Is God a Psychopath?

I thought I might dust off the cobwebs on gathering on this blog, since I haven't gotten around to posting for a while. I spent a couple of months out of the country doing some travel and R&R after completing my doctorate. 

'The God of the Old testament is a psychopath'

I note this sentiment expressed towards the God of the old testament by atheists, often followed by a proclamation of possessing superior morals. This is interesting for a number of reason, which I want to explore.

The rejection of the old testament God seems to me to stem primarily from a humanist world view, that believes humans are basically good, and generally regards the judgement of death as offensive. Certainly God cannot judge most people to have fallen short, with the sweeping proclamations we see in the old testament, that would be unfair. Some might contend that God couldn't possibly justify these actions. 

But it is not this simple. Could there not be circumstances warranting drastic intervention by God? What if it wasn't true that humans were basically good?  I note the tendency of a humanistic world view to grapple quite differently with events such as the Boston bombing. Such an event is quite confronting to the view that people are inherently good, but I recall that people wondered how the system had failed the two perpetrators, or if society had done enough to be inclusive of the migrant family, rather than raise the question about the existence of evil. We are reluctant to regard people as evil, but those guilty of the most monstrous of acts, but even then we prefer to see them as simply being broken in some way, to have experienced some great injustice or captive to some unfortunate ideology. 

If we see these events as the outworking of evil in the human heart then we can begin to understand God's actions. Fallen humanity prior to the coming of Christ was under the judgement of death. The reason for the flood in part was to stop the flourishing of evil. However, God extended grace to a remnant that began with Noah  and would lead to the 

covenant with Abraham. God would bring salvation through the nation of Israel and his son, which would be born a Jew, but bring salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike.

The context of the conquest of Canaan in the old testament is God's judgement on the iniquity of the Canaanites and Israel (God's chosen) being given a home in the promised land. Why was Canaan judged? They were a Godless and evil culture. Child sacrifice is just one example. To allow the people of Canaan to flourish would be for evil to flourish and for Israel to be corrupted also. 

One commentator noted that were a human to do the same it would be universally condemned.  But it does not make sense to limit God (who is the creator and over all things) arbitrarily in this manner. God would not in any sense be limited by human sensibilities, nor is it logical to reduce God to a common murderer, since he has authority over life that we do not. Humanity has also shown that taking of life is sometimes necessary, not desirable but necessary. Do we condemn as immoral the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima in WWII, or would that be overly simplistic?

This discussion hasn't even touched on the basis for the moral argument that atheists have made, when they make the statements this post has discussed. This is one big problem that the atheists world view faces. Sam Harris has suggested maximising human flourishing as a basis for morality, but that itself wouldn't necessarily prohibit a lot of things that atheists find objectionable in the bible. I have already noted some examples of the complexities of life and human existence above. In light of these I think the Christian worldview is actually quite strong and also provides hope and resolution.