Bill Nye, Ken Ham, and Starting Points

Initially I had no intention of watching last night's creation versus evolution debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. I have listened to more than a fair share of other such debates, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, and - perhaps most importantly - I am very familiar with Ken Ham's position. I used to frequent Answers in Genesis when I was a believer, and I've watched scores of videos deconstructing Ken's claims. I knew Mr. Ham-fisted would basically hit the same five or six notes he always does, with precious little deviation:

• There are gaps in the fossil record.
• Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.
• Evolution cannot explain the origin of the universe.
• Evolution cannot explain the laws of logic.
• 'You weren't there, were you?'
• The Bible has all the answers.

 

After finding myself with some free time, and seeing friends commenting on the debate online, I decided to fire up the stream and check it out. I only caught things from the rebuttals and on, but the first words I heard out of Ken Ham's mouth told me I hadn't missed anything. "I would like Bill to explain where the laws of logic come from." Yes, Ken, we know you would. You're at the wrong place for that, though.

Evolutionary theory is not a theory about the fundamental foundations of reality. It's not a theory about the nature of logic, even. It's also not a theory about the origin of life from non-living matter, the origin of the universe, or the origin and meaning of morality. As everyone who stayed awake in Biology class knows, the theory of evolution is a theory about the diversity of life. It explains why there are so many different lifeforms, including us. It tells us that random mutations in our genetic material are 'selected' by mother nature in ways that favor our survival. Those organisms that miss out on mutations that allow others to endure a hostile environment, or to stand a better chance of finding a mate, do not reproduce and eventually die out. Different species emerge when one group of organisms evolves to the point that they can no longer produce viable offspring with the other group(s).

Now, of course that's a very cursory and simplified explanation of evolutionary theory, but there it is. The theory doesn't purport to answer how the first cell came about, how the cosmos began, or anything of the sort. There are other scientific theories attempting to resolve those questions, but evolution by natural selection is not one of them. In making such demands of evolution, Mr. Ham-bone only showed that he doesn't actually understand the theory he's pretending to refute.

But consider what Ken is proposing in place of evolution. His "theory" (which is not a theory in any scientific sense, as Bill Nye adequately demonstrated in the debate) is not simply a competing explanation for the diversity of life. Creationism does purport to answer questions about the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the origin of morality, the nature of logic, the fundamental foundations of reality, and lots more. The creationist claim isn't just that god made humans, or that god made all living matter. There is no room for alternate possibilities in creationism; it can't be that god made life, but we don't know where matter came from, or that god created the cosmos, but logical absolutes just are brute facts. If you permit any alternative explanations, you leave space for the puzzling question of why one and not the other. Why can't other things be brute facts, too? Why it isn't acceptable to say we don't know where the universe came from and leave it at that?

However, creationists are not so concerned with how god created any particular thing as much as they seem concerned with that he created it. Creationism is the bizarre "theory" of everything that offers no explanatory mechanisms for what it pretends to explain - indeed, it even seems incapable of providing them! The Bible might say that god spoke and the world came into being, but this bald assertion could hardly be called a mechanism for explaining the actual process of divine creation. For one reason, it makes no sense of the fact that we find layers upon layers upon layers of working parts inside everything in the universe, down to nearly inconceivable subatomic scales. If a watchmaker could construct a watch simply by speaking it into existence, it seems absurd to think he would still bother to do it in such a way as to assemble gears, springs, glass, and all the individual parts into the whole. Why not just create a magic, irreducible watch?

Any answer to the question can only be speculation, no less conjectural than entertaining an answer to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. And here is where the real trouble begins, because with no mechanism to make predictions with, or to test and experiment with, creationism is dead on arrival. It's not science, nor is it a theory. In fact, I don't see how it qualifies as any good kind of explanation at all, even to the "who" question. When archaeologists ask themselves who built Stonehenge, they don't just consider identities of different ancient peoples, they consider the resources that were available to them, the knowledge they would have possessed, and, most importantly, how they might have used their resources and knowledge to construct the monument. Unfortunately, the construction methods used at Stonehenge are still a matter of widespread debate, and so too, as we would expect, is the identity of the builders. Even though there are many old legends attributing the site to different sources, the question of who built Stonehenge remains as speculative as how they built it.

This is what amused me about Ken Ham's frequent appeal to "starting points" during the debate. His starting point he proudly declared to be the Bible - a collection of old documents that have been given countless interpretations over the centuries, which are known to have been redacted and borrowed from earlier stories, [Origins of the Old Testament] which show evidence of anachronism, [Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed; Cline, From Eden to Exile] and which have all the hallmarks of a pre-scientific worldview. [Paul Tobin, The Physical Sciences] On this foundation, Ham wants to build his case for his "theory" of everything that is incapable of providing explanatory mechanisms for its claims. It's not hard to see why this is an inadequate starting point... unless you're wearing Ken's "biblical glasses", or dogma blinders as I call them.

Ham-ster man's other two notes, about the gaps in the fossil record and indirect observation, go to show that in addition to having no clue about what evolutionary theory posits, he also has no clue about what is important in a sufficiently explanatory theory. I would like to see him ask a homicide detective if he was present for the murder he's solved on indirect observations. Ken seems to have this crazy idea that eyewitness testimony is the strongest kind of evidence one can have for anything, and while I can't help but suspect it has something to do with his faith in the orthodox view of the gospels, I can say there are tons of studies by Elizabeth Loftus and others showing that eyewitness memory is, in fact, quite easily fooled. Likewise, the gaps in the fossil record as not as significant a challenge to evolution as Ken would like us to believe. [Kathleen Hunt, Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ] Even generally speaking, the fact that a theory cannot account for absolutely everything it describes, or that it relies on indirect observations, is not going to undermine that theory as badly as it will if there is no working mechanism. Mechanisms allow us to make predictions and test claims in ways that can resolve apparent gaps and strengthen our confidence in a theory.

I should say I do think we all bring our own unique perspectives to the table of discussion and debate, but whether it's accurate to call these "starting points" is another question. Have we come to these points by a priori or a posteriori means? Frankly, I'm less interested in that argument than I am in how you think you can demonstrate the truth of your claims. Even if you want to start with an assumption and try to show how much sense everything makes if we grant it, you still need to state your case and expect that assumption to be questioned. When Ken Ham calls the Bible his "axiom", I think he abuses the concept of an axiom. The Bible is not self-authenticating in any sensible way, and there are, as I've already noted, quite a few problems with it.

On the other hand, it seems to me that there can be axioms that are far more defensible. Ken ironically asked Bill to account for the laws of logic, but the law of noncontradiction and the law of identity can be taken as self-evident axioms in a way that the Bible cannot. If one were to try and show the law of noncontradiction to be false, for example, she would only wind up affirming it. To meaningfully undermine the law of noncontradiction, you would have to assume that the law could not be both true and false simultaneously. But this assumption is what the law of noncontradiction states. There is no analogous manner in which refuting the Bible would be to affirm the Bible, and if the laws of logic are conceivably self-evident in this way, there is actually no need to account for them - they account for themselves.

What all could be built on these sorts of axioms is a subject for another time, and it's important to remember that the creation/evolution debate is a different ballgame. While I was at first slightly perturbed by Nye's refusal to even acknowledge Ham's red herrings, perhaps it was a good move to not let things descend into a deeply philosophical quibble that would've been ultimately irrelevant. Evolution in no way conflicts with, or establishes, the laws of logic, for reasons already given.

Nye did do an excellent job of showing that he really knows science and the scientific method, however, and Ken couldn't help but preach to the converted, since it's all he knows how to do. In a debate where science is meant to play so eminent a role, Ken only hurt himself by appealing to scriptural authority and to vague individual authorities, rather than keeping the discussion centered on facts and evidence. But then again, after all we've seen that Mr. Ham doesn't know, it shouldn't be surprising for me to say that I don't think he knows what makes facts reliable facts, and what makes evidence good evidence. To quote mine a passage from a very old book, if one were to write down all that Ken Ham doesn't know, "I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Our Animal Nature or a Sinful Fallen Nature?

Every now and then I am inspired to reflect on our animal nature. When I read of wars, rape, and discrimination, I can't help but shake my head and question, 'how can anyone deny that we're just another species of animal?' Creationists believe that we are specially created beings, not descended from any primate ancestors, as evolution tells us. Even though I am a former creationist, it doesn't make sense to me how anyone can look at some of our species' brutish, primitive behaviors and miss the connection to the animal kingdom. I often ask myself how I could have been so blind too, but a thought occurred to me tonight that put an interesting perspective onto things.

When many religious believers read of wars, rape, and discrimination, their first reaction is usually to contemplate our sinful or fallen nature. This is readily apparent in the popular argument for evil, i.e. the world around us is in such a hellish state because evil exists, and you can't have evil without good, so therefore good (or God) must exist. For creationists, there is no need to even raise the possibility of animal instincts fueling our misbehavior, because they already believe they have an explanation: we are fallen, sinful creatures.

This thought led me to wonder - are these two views on human nature all that different? Both often claim the same negative behaviors as evidence for their own perspective. Both stress the importance of overcoming our nature, whether it's in order to live in a civilized society or to maintain a religious call to purity. Both also run the gamut as far as what falls under our natures. Our animal nature and the fallen nature view can both drive us into serious offenses like murder and trivial ones like mating. The similarities pretty much end there, however, and there are some major points of conflict between the two views.

First and foremost is the assignment of responsibility. According to religion, our fallen nature is our own fault. Whether sin traveled down via Adam and Eve or we make our own original sin each day, we are to blame. On the other hand, our animal nature is no fault of our own, it's the result of evolution and it's simply who we are because of what we are. Consciousness and free will may impose a sort of moral imperative to resist our primitive instincts, but the point is that we did not give ourselves this animal nature, so we should feel no unnecessary shame or guilt.

Secondly would have to be the resolution proposed for overcoming our nature. With our animal nature, all we need do is make a conscious and concentrated effort to control our instincts. It may require some discipline, and everyone will crack under stress at times, but our ability to make decisions means we are not helplessly bound to our primal urges. Religion teaches just the opposite: we cannot overcome our fallen nature alone. Instead we must reach out to a deity or savior, otherwise we are helplessly bound to our sinful urges.

Last but not least in these differences would be the consequences for giving into our nature. To let sin rule your life will mean eternal separation from God in horrible agony. There is no real second chance - if you indulge your fallen desires, you will pay for it more than a hundredfold. Yet the worst that could happen with indulging our animal nature might be a jail sentence or execution. The punishment does not continue for eternity, and there are chances to shape up. The crux here is that a trivial offense, while met with a trivial punishment (or none at all) in the animal nature view, will receive the full penalty of a serious offense in the fallen nature view, for God judges all sins as equally detestable (Matt. 5:21-28).

Up until this moment, I've been noting the differences between both views with an emphasis on moral concerns. These concerns do not have much bearing on the truth or falsity of either view though, and so I'll turn to the evidence. Both views claim many of the same behaviors for evidence of their validity, as mentioned before, but I think only one side is actually entitled to them. To find the evidence for our animal nature, one need only look at the animal kingdom in contrast to ourselves. Animals frequently go to war with other species and sometimes even with their own. There is also rape and tribalism among countless animals.

I'm not saying that this alone proves our animal nature, but it does significant damage to the fallen nature view. If animals display many of the same behaviors that equate to sin in humans, is the animal kingdom of a fallen nature too? Some believers have argued that the fall in the garden affected the entire world, but this is nonsense when applied to animals. Did Jesus die to save chimps? Jackals? Tapeworms? If the believer claims that these behaviors don't imply anything about a fallen nature in animals, they are guilty of special pleading and their argument falls apart (not to mention that it suggests that God picks some very confusing design standards, apparently to mess with our heads).

What does the fallen nature view have as its support anyway? It may claim things like war, rape, and discrimination as evidence of sin, but this link is only made in holy books and other religious texts. While we may observe animals behaving much like ourselves in the natural world, and vice-versa, faith in the reliability of an ancient book is all that sustains the fallen nature view. In so many ways, the fallen nature view is about regressing, looking back to a primitive text, returning to a state of purity, and so forth. The animal nature view is one of progress, moving beyond instinct with these wonderful brains, looking forward to a brighter future with the aid of reason.

In one view, the world is decaying, we are to blame, and we are powerless to stop it, forced to rely on the assistance of a "higher" being who let it all happen and demands our worship in return. In the other view, the world is evolving and advancing, and although we did not set all of this in motion, we do have the power to change things for the better, one life at a time.

Appeals to Authority

I just recently finished reading Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? by Norman Golb. Golb's thesis is that the manuscripts found in the Qumran caves are not the work of the Essene sect, or of any single sect at all, but that they are the manuscripts of the Jewish community itself, stored in caves for protection during the First Jewish-Roman War. The general consensus of scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls has identified them as Essene writings since they were found in the 1940s, and although Golb exposes dozens of holes in their theory and masterfully argues for his own with a wealth of evidence, his contentions were largely dismissed and neglected for years.

The reason I bring this up is that it's a perfect example of when scholarly authority goes wrong. Even when the proof can be right directly under a person's nose, they may still miss it or deny it. In the book, Golb illustrates a number of ways in which the prevailing Dead Sea Scrolls authorities (Roland de Vaux and his team) suppress alternative theories and play media games to destroy the reputations of their opponents. The movie Expelled is a farce, to be sure, but the fight for the Dead Sea Scrolls is just that type of 'academic conspiracy'. It's astonishing to me the lengths people will go to in order to defend their pet theories, but it certainly does happen.

Appeals to authority can be dangerous oversights. One of the major criticisms leveled at Golb was that his theory was outside the mainstream opinion of the academia. In other words, 'all these experts say this, so how can they be wrong and you be right?' I hear this same sort of thing when I question the historicity of Jesus. Popular consensus does not make any idea correct though, what matters is the evidence that the consensus is formed upon. In the case of Jesus, the evidence is very slim and very suspicious, and when the 'authorities' on him are often theologians with a deeply vested interest in the historical reality of Christ, it's easy to see why appeals to authority have to be taken with a grain of salt most times.

There is something to be said for authority opinion, however. Generally speaking, you want to learn or be assisted by those who are qualified in the issue at hand. You probably wouldn't trust a plumber to advise you knowledgeably on open-heart surgery. This is part of the reason I don't trust preachers to discuss evolution from a knowledgeable standpoint. I'm not saying that everyone needs to have a degree to have an opinion on something, because many people do take their own time to research subjects they have an interest in. That doesn't mean they are as well informed as they like to think though, especially if their 'research' has been limited mostly to one side of the issue.

So authority opinion only goes so far. When it comes to evolution vs. creationism, I will give more weight to the opinion of a biologist, simply because they have made a career - often times a life's work - out of studying nature, not just from a layman's perspective, but from an objective and methodical perspective. What ultimately matters, though, is evidence. For this reason, I always try to steer clear of appeals to authority when I'm making a case for evolution to those who are unsure of it. Noting that 99% of scientists agree with evolutionary theory is like saying that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein agreed with the theory of gravity. It's nice to know, but it doesn't really mean much unless you explain why there is this agreement.

It's tempting to point to the consesus of authorities, because it's usually so much easier and much less time-consuming than learning the evidence for yourself and knowing how to express it to others. But I find it infinitely more respectable to have a discussion with someone who can make their own statements, rather than someone who makes generalized appeals to authority. I find it frustrating when a person I'm debating with offers up a book as evidence for their viewpoint. 'Have you read The Case for Christ? It addresses all your questions.' If I haven't read the book, am I expected to go read it and suspend conversation until then? Even if I have read it, I'll lose some respect for someone who relies on others to do the thinking and debating for them. (I have read the book, and no, it doesn't answer anything!)

It's definitely worth it to learn the evidence and the argumentation for yourself, I'd say. It's more rewarding intellectually, it generates more respect, and it's the only real way to be persuasive. Appeals to authority do have an appropriate context, but I will never swap critical thinking for them, nor should anyone else.

Some Believers Still Hate Dissent to Their Faith

I live in a pretty conservative neighborhood. You can still see some McCain campaign signs in yards and even Bush 2004 and "W" bumper stickers on some cars. Around Christmas time, I inevitably see a few cars with "Keep Christ in Christmas" stickers. As you can imagine from this information, decorating my car with bumper stickers that oppose the common ignorance of the masses is a risky venture. I've gone ahead and done it anyway though, multiple times. And my car has been vandalized for it, multiple times.

Nothing too extreme like actual damage to the vehicle, but I have had bumper stickers torn off my car twice, and a plaque torn off once. I think about this often when I see conservative and religious stuff on cars in my area, and I think it reveals some uncomfortable truths about the way some people still think of disbelief in America. My two defaced stickers were quite innocent. One simply said, "Atheists believe in people" and the other read, "Don't believe in god? You are not alone."

The first sticker was ripped completely off. What kind of mentality would lead someone to take at offense at something so positive though? Does the mere association of atheism with humanitarianism piss off certain people that much? It's kind of hard to believe, so at first I figured the sticker had fallen off in the rain or something.

Then my other sticker was messed with. It wasn't torn completely off, but the first word was peeled away. What a clever message to send, "believe in god? You are not alone." It's not as though 85% of the freaking world isn't already aware of this. It's not like atheists aren't continually reminded by theists that our position is in the minority. What a wonderful testament it is to deface someone else's property in the name of your faith.

I'll admit: after having those two very positive and very unoffensive messages on my car destroyed, I went for something more edgy. I went with a plaque of a Darwin fish eating the Jesus fish with "Reality Bites" in the middle. I'm really not surprised that it offended people, but I am surprised that someone waited behind my car and took the time to pry it off. Have you ever tried to get one of those little plaques off? It doesn't come off easy. I woke up the next morning and went out to my car and found the plaque missing, which means some asshole found the energy and the time to remove it from my car, which was parked right in front of my home.

I have some friends who persistently try to tell me that religious fundamentalism is not a big issue in America anymore, and it annoys the hell out of me, quite honestly. I don't know what else besides fundamentalist you would call people who so hate your dissent to their faith that they will snatch anything resembling it off your car. I think Christianity is dangerous nonsense, but you don't see me going around and peeling off religious bumper stickers or prying fish plaques off anyone's cars. The funny thing to me is that these jerks probably think their faith has the moral high ground when tearing off stickers that say, "Atheists believe in people."

Fundamentalism is not dead, it's only retreated more into the shadows. It has to, with the ever-advancing threat of science and our culture realizing more and more the outdated nature of ancient holy books. There is no progress in fundamentalism. All it can hope for these days is a disaster, when its proponents can voice their absurd views and declare punishment is upon us for daring to think forward and not reverting to bronze age myths. And maybe this is why bumper stickers matter to these people. They have few other means for getting themselves the attention they crave.