It’s coming up.
In just a few short weeks, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” will debate the scientific premise of creationism with Ken Ham at Answers In Genesis’ Creation Museum.
What should Nye say?
Science writer Greg Laden offered this morning a short list of points he’d like Nye to make. In general, Laden suggests that Nye focus on the unscientific nature of creationism. The debate over divinity was real and important in the history of science, Laden points out, but that debate has come and gone. Laden doesn’t use the phrase, but his argument is reminiscent of philosopher Philip Kitcher’s definition of creationism as “dead science.” In this vision, it makes no sense to debate the science of creationism, since creationism is not even bad science. Creationism, rather, represents an understanding of science that has been thoroughly and completely discredited.
Laden’s debate prep brings up two important questions. First, what would people advise Ken Ham to say? And second, do we agree with Laden’s advice to Nye?
First things first: What do you think Ken Ham should say? For those of us who live mental lives outside the boundaries of religious creationism, is there anything he could say that would convince us that his creation science should be taken seriously? For me, the answer is no. I’ve defended Ham in the past and taken heat for it from ardent anti-creationists. But in this case, I’ll be flummoxed if Ham uses any arguments beyond his scriptural stock-in-trade. That is, I don’t guess Ham will try to convince people like me who are not moved by references to Biblical passages.
I’m thinking Ham will likely harp on the scientific merits of young-earth creationism, when in fact his argument would be much stronger if he tried a different approach. To people like me, at least, Ham’s scientific credentials have no leg to stand on. But as religious dissenters young-earth creationists can claim much more wiggle room in education and culture. If Ham wanted to reach out to people beyond the ranks of his current religious supporters, he should argue for creationists’ rights as aggrieved minorities, as a religious group, not as a contender for scientific legitimacy.
But Ken Ham is not likely to take this approach, since he has built his career on the promise that young-earth creationism is better science than mainstream science. He will likely trot out his compelling but ultimately vacuous arguments about observational science vs. historic science. He will likely ask Bill Nye some variant of his ultimately senseless question: “Were you there?” If Ken Ham hopes to maintain his role as the charismatic leader of the young-earth creationist movement, he can’t really do anything else.
Question two: What should Nye say? I don’t think Laden’s advice is the first best answer. IMHO, the most effective answer to young-earth creationists such as Ken Ham is a theological one, not a pop-science one. As do the folks at BioLogos, I think the most effective message young-earth creationists need to hear is that Biblical faith does not require faith in a young earth. As science pundits tend to agree, young-earth creationism is not really science, it is something else. It is an outgrowth of a particular religious understanding. Therefore, the strongest arguments against it are religious, not scientific.
Also, I don’t think Nye should use his precious exposure to creationists to blast the dead-science nature of young-earth creationism. Many creationists will expect a hostile attack on their belief system. They will not be moved by it. They will not be convinced by it, since they will not credit its source. I think it will be more effective for The Science Guy to do what he does best: explain what science is. Young-earth creationism is based on a very different way of defining knowledge. If Bill Nye can explain what real science is—instead of attacking the reasons why young-earth creationism doesn’t meet that definition—he can expose some of the creationists in the debate audience to a very different way of understanding the entire debate.
I Love You but You're Going to Hell 
Greg Laden
/ January 10, 2014If convincing creationists to change their minds is the objective you may be right, but Bill Nye is a science promoter, not a theologian. Your strategy may work better in a different debate.
Adam Laats
/ January 10, 2014Greg, Thanks for the comment. I agree. But I think Nye will be wise to stick with his unmatched skill in communicating the nature of (real) science to this audience as he has done with mainstream audiences throughout his career. I think your points about the “dead” nature of creation science are true, but strategically it makes more sense to me for Nye to focus on a positive message about what science is, instead of a negative message about what creationism is not.
ChazIng
/ January 10, 2014Is that a scientific statement, Dr. Laats?
Ham would most likely stick to the script used here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWXqHeaVl2c
Adam Laats
/ January 10, 2014Thanks for posting that link. For those who are unaware of Ham’s definitions of science, check out minute 6:45 on ChazIng’s video. I agree entirely that Ham will likely focus on this in his debate with Nye. I do indeed assert, however, that this is not a definition of science that holds any weight outside of young-earth creationist circles. Nor should it. Personally, as I’ve argued above, I think this sort of idea is worth defending as a religious belief. But it is not really “science.” Most important, it should not be taught as science in public-school classrooms.
Tim
/ January 10, 2014I agree that Bill should take a theological route, but he won’t – and that will be problematic for him. He needs to temporarily adopt the creationist position and pokes holes in it to stand a chance. He can’t simply stand up there and spew out scientific “facts” – but I’m sure that is what he will do.
Agellius
/ January 10, 2014“As do the folks at BioLogos, I think the most effective message young-earth creationists need to hear is that Biblical faith does not require faith in a young earth. As science pundits tend to agree, young-earth creationism is not really science, it is something else. It is an outgrowth of a particular religious understanding.”
Precisely, it’s an outgrowth of the doctrine that every word of the Bible must be understood as literally true at face value. The irony is that the Bible itself never makes such a face-value statement. And even if it did, it would be circular to argue that we must interpret the Bible this way because the Bible says we must.
However, to me this is an argument between Christians. I don’t see why Nye should attempt to make it, or why we should expect it to be effective if he did.
ChazIng
/ January 10, 2014A YEC scientist’s view on Nye: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8530 and http://blog.drwile.com/?p=10951. If the topic is “Is creation a viable model of origins?”, Ham would have less room to quibble about theology so he might go the way of the philosophy of science. Nye may however, fall headlong into assuming that small-scale evolution is the same as macro-evolution and in conflating engineering with science. Hope Nye knows what he’s doing.
sheila0405
/ January 10, 2014I’m most interested in the divide between the validity vs the not valid presentation of carbon dating. When I was a kid, I was raised in a YEC home and church. Carbon dating was pooh poohed as not being scientifically valid, but I don’t remember why. I have long ago rejected the YEC theology. I hope Nye gets into the nuts and bolts science behind evolution. There are still people like me out there who never had the opportunity to learn it.