On the Nye/Ham debate: The central point to remember

A few days ago, Bill Nye debated Ken Ham on whether YEC (Young Earth Creationism) is a viable model of reality. As an atheist living in the south, I am in a unique position to personally know many people on both sides who think their respective debater clearly and decisively won, and that the other side is simply close minded to the evidence. As might be expected, I side with Nye, but it is extremely frustrating to see many people who I consider to be intelligent on issues detached from theology siding with a worldview I find irreconcilable with reality. Of course, it’s entirely possible they feel the same way towards me, which brings us to the question: How can we determine which of the two sides is more likely to be correct?

This question can be addressed quite effectively with a picture quoting both speakers (from about 2:04:00 into the video) that has been making rounds after the debate which aptly demonstrates the difference between the two worldviews (click to enlarge for readability):

The difference is this: Whereas Nye is open to contradictory evidence and can even cite multiple specific examples of what would change his mind, Ham says nothing can convince him he is wrong.

Someone might ask why Nye’s openness should count for him and Ham’s certainty should count against him. To answer that, I shall illustrate with an analogy: Imagine there was a debate between a Round Earther and a Flat Earther on whether or not Flat Earthism is a viable model of reality.

When asked what it would take to change their minds, the Round Earther replies thus: If the Earth was flat, there would be many pieces of evidence clearly different from what we observe today. We would expect people to be unable to return to their starting point by traveling in a single direction, such as from Florida across the oceans and Eurasia back to Florida from the opposite side. Instead, we would expect traveling far enough in one direction to result in falling off the edge of the world, or running into an impassable barrier. Or when launching satellites into orbit and having them take pictures and videos of our planet, we would expect them to show us a world that is a more or less flat expanse instead of an oblate spheroid.

If evidence like that existed and was demonstrated, the Round Earther would change his mind and become a Flat Earther. But no such evidence has ever been demonstrated.

By contrast, the Flat Earther replies that he believes the Earth is flat because that is the literal reading of a book he believes divinely inspired and infallible, and nothing can change his mind.

The reason the Round Earther is capable of coming up with reasonable examples of the kind of evidence that would change his mind is because his beliefs accurately reflect the evidence. Because of this, he can come up with examples of how the evidence would need to change in order for his worldview to change accordingly. By contrast, the Flat Earther is committed to a worldview that does not accurately reflect the evidence, and thus is unable to come up with reasonable examples of what would change his mind.

The parallel I am drawing between this analogy and the Nye/Ham debate should be perfectly clear now.  People like Nye can come up with reasonable and specific examples of evidence that would change their minds. Here are some of mine: If after a global flood every animal migrated from Ararat to their current locations, we would not expect animals like koalas to be in Australia or polar bears to be in the Arctic when the environments they require to survive do not exist between the two points, and yet such animals are there. According to YEC, all species living and dead existed side by side at one point in the past. In such a world, we would expect to see fossils of relatively modern mammals like rabbits, cows, and humans all throughout the geological layers, but they are only found near the top, never in deeper layers among dinosaurs and other creatures.

If nearly all geological layers were laid down in a single global flood event, we would expect stone and metal tools like hammers, knives, and arrowheads to sink towards the bottom and be well preserved in sediment, yet such tools are only ever found in the upper layers among humans. If the universe came into existence a mere 6,000 years ago we would not expect to see any celestial objects more than 6,000 light years away, and yet the unaided eye can see celestial objects millions of light years away, and telescopes can see celestial objects billions of light years away. And I am still only scratching the surface of evidence at odds with the YEC model.

As people with worldviews that accurately reflect the evidence, Nye and I can come up with specific and reasonable examples of how the evidence would be different if the YEC model were accurate – just like our hypothetical Round Earther can with the Flat Earth model. Ham, whose worldview is wildly inaccurate, is left claiming that no evidence can convince him his favorite book is wrong – just like our hypothetical Flat Earther. This same scenario applies to theological beliefs and debates in general, and is the idea behind Adam Lee’s The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists.

One of Ham’s common claims is that both sides have the same evidence, but simply alter interpretation by looking at it through “man’s glasses” or “biblical glasses”. Ham claims that people who acknowledge the evidence supporting evolution “will ‘fit’ the evidence into their belief system no matter what that evidence shows. In the same way, creationists who see the world through biblical glasses will fit the evidence into our presuppositional worldview”, with quotes around the first use of “fit” clearly implying that believing evolution requires contorting or ignoring the evidence. Yet in practice, the opposite is true: There is no interpretation too absurd, no amount of evidence too massive to ignore if it is necessary to preserve Ham’s flavor of biblical literalism, whereas people like Nye would be entirely willing to believe YEC if the evidence supported it. But the evidence does not support YEC.

All people, no matter how intelligent, make mistakes to varying degrees. The acknowledgment of this fact, and the willingness to modify or discard theories and hypotheses as new evidence comes to light, is what makes the scientific method far and away the best approach we have ever devised for making sense of the world. By contrast, those who tie themselves to a specific ideology or scriptural interpretation also tie themselves to their errors and become incapable of correcting or improving their worldview and moving forward.

Acknowledging that we can make mistakes does more than anything else to protect us from making and repeating them.