Inside the Nye/Ham Debate (Part 4): Ken Ham’s Presentation and Fun With Mirrors–Historical Science and the Laws of Logic

This week, I am continuing in my walk through of Inside the Nye/Ham Debate by Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, in which they “analyze” the debate that took place between Bill Nye and Ken Ham three years ago. The purpose of these posts is not to rehash the debate itself, but rather take a closer look at how Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis frame the issues for their followers. In short, the purpose of these posts is to clarify the talking points and tactics Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis use to obfuscate the basic issues regarding the creation/evolution debate.

I said in an earlier post that the YECist position really is a case of smoke and mirrors. No matter what evidence or argument is presented to challenge them, you can be sure that somehow, someway, they are going to bring things back around to a set of standard talking points that oftentimes have nothing to do with the argument presented, and if they do, the purpose of the talking points isn’t so much to make a counter argument, but rather to delegitimize the initial argument so as to justify dismissing it altogether. It is smoke and mirrors, and these posts are simply pointing out where the mirrors are and what smoke they use.

Ken Ham’s 30-Minute Presentation
In the next two posts, I will take you through the “analysis” that Inside the Nye/Ham Debate gives of Ken Ham’s 30-minute presentation at the debate. The book devotes 30 pages to Ham’s presentation, as opposed to 70 pages to Nye’s presentation. As we saw with the books’ “analysis” of the opening statements by both Nye and Ham, the book spends a considerable more amount of time on Bill Nye. The reason is obvious: Ken Ham simply doesn’t really say a whole lot, other than the standard AiG talking points—and they really don’t have anything to do with the debate topic. The book, therefore, simply attempts to convince the reader that Ken Ham is fighting the good fight for biblical authority, and then rehashes Ham’s talking points.

By contrast, Bill Nye actually addressed the debate topic and gave quite a lot of scientific arguments refuting YECism. So, in order to retain credibility in the eyes of its readers, the book has to address Nye’s challenges somehow—and the way they do it is to repackage their standard talking points, sprinkle in accusations that Nye is a bad, ignorant, hostile guy, and repeat the talking points over and over again in their response to each of Nye’s arguments. It gets awfully repetitive—and that’s the point: drum the YECist talking points into the heads of their followers so that they don’t have time to actually think about the arguments Nye put forth.

Five Mirrors
Now, to use my analogy of “smoke and mirrors,” the standard talking points of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis can, I believe, be reduced to five basic “mirrors.” These are the lines that Ken Ham repeats over and over again, regardless of the actual point or argument he is addressing. It doesn’t matter what that point or argument is: dating methods, starlight, genetics, or questions regarding the genre of Genesis 1-11. No matter what it is, Ken Ham will inevitably bounce that point or argument off one or more of these five “mirrors”:

1. His opponent is not educated enough and is ignorant of the difference between observational science (i.e. technology and related to the scientific method) and historical science (i.e. beliefs about the past that can’t be tested, and that are based on one’s religious worldview).
2. His opponent is a secular humanist, and therefore believes in materialism; but the laws of logic and reason and the laws of nature are immaterial things, so his opponent is borrowing from the Christian worldview. He’s not allowed to use logic and reason because he’s not a Christian.
3. Genesis 1-11 is God’s eyewitness account of history, and is God’s historical science textbook. His opponent wasn’t there to witness the creation of the world, but God was, so we should trust what He wrote.
4. We all have the same evidence, but we interpret the evidence differently based on our “starting points,” and those “starting points” are essentially religious in nature.
5. There is a religious war going on in our culture between “man’s fallible word” and “God’s infallible Word.”

Everything else Ken Ham says is essentially smoke that is reflected by these five mirrors. So let’s get to seeing these mirrors in action. And, just to keep in mind, remember that the topic of the debate was whether or not young earth creationism is a viable scientific model for exploring the topic of origins. As I go through the book’s analysis of Ham’s presentation, ask yourself, “Is he addressing the topic at all?”

The First Mirror: Observational and Historical Science
The very first thing the book emphasizes about Ham’s presentation was how he wanted to make sure everyone knew the proper definitions of observational science (that which builds technology and is subject to the scientific method) and historical science (beliefs about origins that cannot be tested, and thus are based on one’s religious beliefs about origins). The reason why this is perhaps the most fundamental talking point of YECism should be obvious: it redefines anything in science that deals with discerning the age of the earth or universe right out of the realm of science and into the realm of blind faith.

Essentially, Ken Ham is saying, “Of course YECism is scientific…it’s just a different kind of science than the kind that is subject to the scientific method. It’s the kind of science that is based on religious belief.” Right there, Ken Ham lost the debate, for he admitted that YECism is not a valid scientific model. Merely making up your own definition of a “special kind of science” that isn’t subject to the scientific method doesn’t cut it. Quite frankly, it is utterly amazing how they can continue to make this claim and maintain a straight face.

In fact, the book expanded on Ken Ham’s faulty distinction by actually claiming that “secularists” acknowledge that there are two types of science. Ken Ham had quoted an Earth Science book that mentioned the difference between physical geology and historical geology: “We study physical geology before historical geology because we must first understand how the earth works before we try to unravel the past.” In Inside the Nye/Ham Debate, they added another quote from an introductory book about dinosaurs that labeled paleontology and geology as historical sciences: “These scientists will never be able to conduct experiments on fossil subjects as living organisms or study directly the environments they lived in.”

Based on these two quotes, Ham and Hodge (HH) boldly declare that “the world” does indeed “recognize these clear distinctions,” and claim that this point by Ken Ham was “one of the most powerful arguments of the evening” (53).

But it’s not. The fact is neither of those textbooks (and I can guarantee you that no scientist outside of YECist circles) defines the branches of science that deal with the past (i.e. the historical sciences) as “beliefs about the past that are based on one’s worldview and religious authority.” Even the quote from the geology textbook is clear: you study what you can in the present, and then use that evidence to guide you in your understanding of the past. In other words, there isn’t a “clear distinction” at all. Rather, one bases knowledge of the past on what can be observed in the present. No science textbook or scientist (outside of YECist circles) says, “There are two clearly distinct kinds of science: one for technology and the scientific method, and the other, a matter of religious belief that isn’t subject to the scientific method.”

Needless to say, Ham’s argument is not so much a “powerful argument,” as it is a powerfully bad argument. Nevertheless, it is one AiG continues to make because no one takes the time to explain why it is a misleading argument. Bill Nye certainly didn’t—he simply dismissed it and say, “No one makes that distinction.” That was just sloppy of him, and that is why YECists like Ken Ham can continue to get away with such a blatant falsehood. It is no use trying to show scientific evidence that contradicts YECism, because Ken Ham dismisses such evidence out of hand in turn throws out this faulty distinction between observational and historical science. Until one dissects that faulty argument, that mirror will continue to deflect valid scientific evidence that challenges YECism.

The Second Mirror: The Laws of Logic and the Uniformity of Nature
The “observational/historical science” argument was highlighted on the first page of the book’s analysis of Ham’s presentation, and was brought up over five times in the course of the chapter. On the second page of the chapter, the second mirror was put in place. The book introduces one of Ham’s comments this way: “Mr. Ham made a very powerful and insightful statement that needs to be considered carefully” (50).

That statement was essentially this: “Non-Christian scientists are borrowing from the Christian worldview when they use the scientific method, because they are assuming the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. But humanism (which is really atheism) denies the existence of anything non-material, and since logic is not material, they can’t account for the laws of logic in their materialistic religion.” Take that, you secular humanists!

If that line of argumentation perplexes you, just wait, HH also provided their own analysis: it obviously requires logic and reason to deduce that the laws of nature are constant, and therefore reliable so that one can do science, right? Well, HH make it absolutely clear that YECists believe in the consistency of the laws of nature, for that is what makes observational science possible. But they disagree with “the belief that the rates and processes that occurred in the past are basically the same as what we observe in the present” (51).

So basically, HH is saying, “We believe the laws of nature are constant, but they were different in the past.”

If you are now scratching your head, consider what they say next. After saying Christians have a basis for believing in the consistency of the laws of nature (i.e. the Bible says God upholds all things), HH then claim: “But in an ever-changing universe as proposed by the secularists, why would the laws of science be constant? Why couldn’t they continue to change? The non-Christian must thus borrow from the Bible, though unintentionally” (51).

That’s right, HH is saying that when scientists (whom they renamed “secularists”) point out that there is constant change in the universe (and there is), that that apparently means they are claiming that the laws of nature are constantly changing. But scientists don’t say that the laws of nature are constantly changing—they are saying that the change we see in nature is made possible because of the constant laws of nature. Yet HH still accuses them of claiming something that they never claimed. Scientists claim the laws of nature are constant because they’ve studied the laws of nature and have found they are constant.

Now of course, as a Christian, I believe that God ultimately upholds everything in nature; and of course the very impetus of for science in the first place was a decidedly Christian worldview that believed that since God is a God of order, that it is possible to study nature and find it to be orderly. But the claim by HH that “secularists” think the laws of nature are not constant is just flat out bizarre—to coin a recent term, it is an example of “alternative facts” that have no basis in reality.

Amazingly though, HH positively gloats over this supposed argument when they say:

“This powerful form of argumentation is like pulling the rug out from underneath unbelievers to point out that their religion has no foundation, except to borrow from God’s Word. Mr. Nye never addressed the secular borrowing of logic and uniformity of nature. Doing so would suffice to destroy the worldview Mr. Nye was professing.”

“Mr. Nye’s worldview was refuted by these points alone. Mr. Nye ignored these powerful arguments and went on to give several supposed examples for evolution that all involved interpretations based on his presupposition of naturalism! Mr. Ham’s explanation of historical and observational science as well as his calling Mr. Nye on the carpet in regard to the laws of logic and uniformity of nature really undermined Bill Nye’s entire attempt at justifying his religion of naturalism” (51-52).

Initial Observations of the First Two Mirrors
HH continued to bring up this supposed “powerful argument” regarding the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature against Bill Nye throughout this chapter—six times to my recollection. And, as you can no doubt see in the two above quotes, Ken Ham doesn’t restrict himself to using one mirror at a time. In those two quotes alone, we find, not only the first two mirrors in play, but also a few others we’ve already mentioned but haven’t discussed yet. The effect is that things can get rather confusing and dizzying, so much so that one forgets what the original topic of the debate even was.

In case you forgot, it was this: “Is young earth creationism a viable scientific model for origins?” And in case you haven’t noticed, at no point in this discussion of the first two mirrors, did Ken Ham ever address that in the debate, or did HH address in their book. Instead, what was reflected was fictitious definitions of “historical science,” bizarre accusations that scientists denying the constancy of the laws of nature, equally bizarre claims that YECists do, in fact, believe the laws of nature are constant, followed by a denial that the laws of nature were the same in the past, and, of course claims that evolution is really a religion, and that Mr. Nye got de-pantsed by Ken Ham’s “powerful arguments.”

And that’s only the first two mirrors at work. In my next Ken Ham post, we’ll look at the next three mirrors in Ham’s fun house.