My Comments on the Ken Ham and Bill Nye Debate

I greatly enjoyed the debate between #KenHam and #BillNye.
My thoughts are many, and probably too much for one post, so I'll try to summarize.

1) Both of them did a great job.

2) Ken Ham clearly presented the Christian worldview upon which the Creation model is based.  He even presented the gospel 3 separate times!

3) Bill Nye The Science Guy presented a number of clear challenges to the creation / Biblical model as presented by the Creation Museum.  He had some facts and good practical challenges.
a) Some of these were terribly unscientific and illogical (but presented in a way that would make people question).  For example, the argument about rapid speciation.  That's a valid argument, but no scientist in their right mind would accept an AVERAGE as a challenge.  It should be presented as exponential with a maximum cap.
b) On the other hand, some were very valid challenges, that were not met satisfactorily by Ken Ham.  Ham needed to answer the ice, tree, and fossil challenges.

4)  Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye with two fundamental questions at the beginning, which Bill Nye NEVER responded to.
4.1.) According to the evolutionary model, how do you account for logic and the laws of nature?
For those who argue that Bill Nye won the debate, you have to come back to this question.  Nye's arguments were based on logic and the laws of nature, but evolution cannot account for them.  That's a serious problem in the evolutionary model.

4.2.) Name one technology that could not have been invented by someone with a Christian / Creation model.
Bill Nye kept insisting the entire debate that the creation model would destroy intelligence and progress, and is "unpatriotic".  But he never answered this question.  Even some of the scientists and technological advances he referenced were Christian creationists or developed by them.

4) Ken Ham spent a lot of time drawing clear lines between Observational Science and Historical Science.  This is extremely important to his model.  If people realize this difference, the whole "science" claim of evolution falls to pieces.  Bill Nye simply denied it, without answering the challenges from Ken Ham.  However, from an outside perspective, Ham spent too much time there, and it looked like a lame cop-out.  (It isn't - it's fundamental, which is why he kept starting there.)

5) Unfortunately, for a person who relies entirely on science, Bill Nye stepped outside the rules of logic several times during the debate, engaging in logical fallacies and name-calling.  This was unnecessary.
Remember this part?  -- Bill Nye to Ken Ham: "My problem is you!"
But just the week before, Bill Nye was insisting that people remember "The debate isn't about our personal beliefs, but whether the model holds up to science."  So ... I found it "troublesome" that he stopped challenging the model and started attacking personally.

6) Unfortunately, Ken Ham did not go head-to-head against the evolution model very strongly.  He could have, but chose not to.  The debate was about the models, and I would have really liked to see him present his battery of facts that an evolutionary model cannot explain.  He has them.  I've heard them.  But he chose not to use them, and I think this really hurt the purpose of the debate.

7) Ken Ham kept his poise, professionalism, and cool the entire debate.  Kudos.  Bill Nye, on the other hand, resorted to emotional manipulation (the who patriotism bit), name-calling, insults (KY people are ignorant), and as I mentioned earlier, logical fallacies and attacking Ham personally.  That hurt his argument.

8) Ken Ham had answers where Bill Nye did not. (Major score for the creation model)
Nye:  I don't know. (Tells a joke).
Ham: We actually have a book that tells us why that is.

9) It's very difficult for two people to debate who don't accept the other's fundamental foundation.  Lol.  Ham's foundation is that God exists and the Bible is true.  Nye's foundation is that if there is a God, he has nothing to do with the world, and the Bible is irrelevant.  (He demonstrated that his fundamental foundation is NOT science, like he claims, because he dismissed out of hand a historical book that SHOULD be studied scientifically, even from someone from his perspective.  He did not allow Biblical testimony to even be considered.  He also stepped outside of reasonable science several times himself.)

This is why I think the person who presented the most challenging facts (Nye) appeared to have an upper hand.  But Ham was hacking at the foundation, and Nye couldn't defend his.

10)  Bill Nye kept claiming that the Creation model couldn't make and evaluate predictions.  Ken Ham kept saying that it does.  Ken Ham is right, and Bill Nye looked silly.  Ken Ham gave over a dozen predictions in his presentation.  He is also right in saying that even the predictions from the evolutionary model are actually based in the Creation model. (remember that question Bill Nye didn't answer?)
Nye kept insisting, but it stopped being scientific argument, and ended up crowd-control.

11) Additionally, Bill Nye ignored other things Ken Ham said, and kept saying, "I'm still waiting for you to ...", when in fact Ham had already addressed several of them.  To be fair, there were some he did not reply to, and he should have.

12) Bill Nye waited until Ken Ham could not respond to offer his most insulting challenges.  That's not even professional.  That's just rude.  Ham presented his questions to Bill Nye at the very beginning.

13) Both men believe their models dogmatically.  Ken Ham basically said that his belief is fundamentally in the Bible and it won't change.  He would not allow the Bible to be removed from his platform (this is valid).
When challenged about the dating methods in the Q&A, Bill Nye made it clear that he would not allow those methods to be removed from his platform (this is also valid).

14) To summarize, BOTH of them left the best challenges to their model unanswered.  And both need to answer them.

Evolution Died of Pneumonia

(Short version - read only until dashed line)

Bill: "Imagine you have severe pneumonia. You will die, unless you get the right medication quickly. A pharmacist escorts you to a room where base chemicals sit on shelves, clearly divided into types, but unlabled as to what they are. There are 60 different chemicals in the room, and you are assured that the correct chemicals to save your life are included. You must choose the right combination that will create the medicine that will save your life. Incorrect combinations create poisons that will kill you except for a few neutral combinations that won't hurt you (but you will still die of the pneumonia). Only one creates the drug needed to save your life. Remember, you don't even know the number of chemicals included in the lifesaving formula - you must guess that too. How likely are you to be right?"

Pete: "I am going to die."

Bill: "Now, let's say that the entire world's population has this severe pneumonia. Each one of them gets to try to create the formula that will save their life. We now have 6 billion attempts, instead of just one. How many people are going to survive?

Pete: "Well, I suppose a few would. Maybe a couple hundred?"

Bill: "Actually, as best as we can tell, the chance of anyone out of the 6 billion people getting the right combination is 1 out of 8 followed by 96 zeros. That's nearly a googol against any of the 6 billion surviving. But ... for the sake of argument, let's take your number. 200 people managed to guess correctly somehow and survived.

Now here comes the tricky part. How many of them could remember which chemicals they chose?"

Pete: "Oh dear - probably only 1 or 2."

Bill: "So how is the next generation (if there is one) going to survive the next pneumonia epidemic?"

Pete: "Well that's simple. The two that survived will write down or tell in detail the location and order of the chemicals they chose to their children."

Bill: "And here is the inherent problem with evolution, Pete. You see, in order for good mutations or accidents to be passed on to the next generation . . . you have to require intelligence. It's one thing to argue that chance processes can happen, but why can we simply assume that they're just 'passed on to the next generation'? You see, there has to already be an order, a system, an intelligence in place in order for those genes to be passed on. Where did THAT come from?

--------------------------------------------------

Pete: "But early cells simply grew and divided - they didn't have to procreate,"

Bill: "They grew and divided? Why? Where did the information for growing and dividing come from? Do you see how this doesn't make sense? If a cell somehow did manage to come into existence, where did it get all that information that we just assume it had? We consider it simply inherent to cells -- simply inherent to life. Maybe it is exactly that - simply inherent."

Pete: "You're arguing for a creator?"

Bill: "Why not? I believe that Z-pak you're taking for your pneumonia was specifically designed and created by a drug company. It's not even living, and I don't think it's any more than 13 chemicals in combination. Why wouldn't I believe that our bodies, which are living and so very much more complex, were created also?"

Pete: "But science says--"

Bill: "Science says that the z-pak was created, yes. And it also says that the human body is much more complex. Science does NOT say that man evolved. Science is study involving the observable and repeatable. That's why we know the z-pak was created -- by observation and repetition. But science cannot claim evolution. Individual scientists can claim it, for they are men and women with beliefs and faith, just like us. And so many scientists have claimed it. And many scientists have also claimed that God created the world, humans, and everything else. Neither of those is science. That's faith."

You see, it is complete foolishness to believe that Zithromax was designed by a drug company and at the same time to believe that your body was just a random happening.

Universal Relativism

Pondering relativism recently, I was struck by a peculiar thought. I cannot build a large-scale model based on relativism, because relativism only exists in a limited scope.
Relativism is relative.

"His law he enforces, the stars in their courses
And sun in its orbit obediently shine;"
- Let All Things Now Living, Katherine K. Davis

We might believe in relativism, but why?
Let's start as far out as we know -- The Universe. Here we observe absolute law, so continuous an accurate that we (or the Mayans) can accurately predict hundreds - even thousands - of years ahead. This is true throughout the universe, the galaxy, and the solar system.

So let's come down to earth. Surprisingly, here we also observe absolute law. Gravity operates here without exception, just as it has throughout the entire universe. Everything is consistent, absolute, and reliable. Photosynthesis works - always. Respiration, the hydrologic cycle, the law of entropy, as well as recovery, and regeneration. A forest burns, and a forest grows back. Water evaporates, and water rains. It is all reliable; consistent; absolute.
Here we observe animals - something we have not seen anywhere else in the universe. They too, are very consistent, and the circle of life appears absolute. They grow; they die. But they all continue in constancy and consistency. We can predict what will happen, and it does.

Then we see a strange animal. Sometimes active during the day; sometimes active during the night. Sometimes carnivore; sometimes herbivore. Sometimes building; sometimes destroying. We cannot predict him. Each one acts differently, and each one may not act the same way every time in the same situation. Strange he is, this creature called human.
And it's the only place where we find relativism.

Nowhere else in the entire universe have we seen relativism. Nowhere else on the earth. What is it about this creature that is different? He is inconsistent; he is changeable. We cannot accurately predict him. What has given him freedom from the absolute law that governs all?

Friends, we could argue that we have evolved to this point. But how can we, who evolved by absolute law, rise above that law? How can we free ourselves from it? All of the rest of the universe is absolute -- how can we be outside it?
No -- moral relativism, social ethics, societal differences, situational ethics, and "Darwinian morality" all must come from somewhere else.
We are left with an obvious deduction: In order for us to be free from the law, we have have been freed from it. Was the human race granted freedom of choice at some point? Were humans given the ability to operate outside absolute law? Were they permitted the freedom to rebel?

Humans are different; humans are special. They are not just another animal. They are very unique. The Bible shows that it was God - the Creator of the absolute universe - who made man in His own image and gave him the freedom of choice. (Genesis 1-3) We have a privilege no other creation has. We can believe relativism and situational ethics only because God gave that freedom to us.

Friends,
Relativism shows the significance of man.
Relativism declares the existence of God.

Seeing Evolution in Order

I was sitting there on the 4th floor on the highrise, placidly watching the suburban Chicago traffic. As an army of ants goes to and fro from an anthill, each minding his own business, yet working in perfect harmony, so these cars went about their circuit. As I watched the endless motion, so regular, yet so varied, I asked myself, "Where does order come from?"

I am not wholly opposed to assuming a belief entirely for a set time, in order to work from inside the belief system. So, please allow me to embrace evolution for a minute.

Cars, such as those in suburbia, and even ants, such as those in my yard, challenge my modern evolutionary thought. My understanding, based in modern theories of evolution, has great distaste for these cars operating in such harmony. This type of order presents some challenges for us. Where does order come from? In evolution, we rely on randonimity and chance. It is highly improbable that life, and ultimately man, evolved from mere non-living matter, yet it is possible. And it has happened.

Evolution is random. Given enough chances, the universe exploded into existence. Given enough time, life accidentally sprang into being. Given enough opportunities, beneficial mutations occurred, changed the organism, and created new creatures. By luck, it so happens that we humans are now here.
But where did order come from?

If I truly am to embrace evolution, I must hold that it is the best system. If it is the best system, why is this system not operating around me every day?
Why, our highways should go nowhere; our driving should be erratic. Our cars should take turns at random, and reach our destinations totally by accident! Our airspace should be hopeful, our seas should be unmapped, our lands should have no signage -- We're creatures of chance! Who needs NASA? Our spacecraft will make it eventually -- just give it enough time!
Is order really necessary?

I cannot believe that order has always been necessary, for I do not believe it was necessary for the beginning of the universe and life. But if order is not necessary, then why does it exist? It should have been eliminated a long time ago by Natural Selection. If order is not necessary, where did it come from? If all was created by random processes, then order had to be created by random processes.

As an evolutionist, I hold that random processes can produce order, or at least, an order. If I toss Scrabble pieces onto a table, it is possible that a word (most likely a 2-letter word) will be produced. We would recognize that as order, or at least, as in order. Unfortunately, I must already operate from order to recognize that the scrabble pieces are in an order. So again I am foiled. If I was a pure randomist, I would not notice the difference between my random tossing producing gibberish on my Scrabble table or producing the entire works of Shakespeare. I must understand language, which is an order, to be able to tell the difference.

So while I could argue that randonimity can produce an order, I am forced to recognize that randonimity cannot produce an operating system of order. Thus, randonimity cannot produce order, and order did not exist before the beginning. Order should not exist. But it does.

Order then, must be necessary. If it is necessary, then where did it come from? If order is necessary, why do we say it wasn't present at the beginning of things!?

One might say that order is necessary for life today, and I think they would be correct. But then we have another problem. Just when did order become necessary?

I cannot believe that order has always been necessary, for I do not believe it was necessary for the beginning of the universe and life. Perhaps then, it became necessary at some later point? I cannot say where, however.

But now I am left with another dilemma. At what point did order supersede randonimity? Order is what I observe in the world today. Without it, I would probably have been staring, panic-stricken, at a horrible mess of car pile-ups. Order seems to be the dominant operator in the present world. When did it surpass random processes? Since it did, Natural Selection would teach me that randonimity is weak, and order is superior. But if order is superior, why was it not necessary in the beginning!?

In either case, I still don't know where it came from. I also do not know how. If randonimity is all that operated prior to order, then how did order come into being? I have already found that randonimity cannot produce order. Where did order come from?

If I continue to hold that randonimity was the cause of everything, then I cannot explain why I observe order. Order is necessary, distinct from random processes.
If order is necessary, then why is randonimity? When order could explain it all, why do we insist that randonimity must explain it all?

I could propose that order and randonimity must both exist. But then, order is necessary.
If order is necessary, why do we insist that it wasn't necessary in the very beginnings of our universe and life?


Wouldn't a theory that includes both order and randonimity make more sense? Perhaps we should develop a theory in which order is dominant, and randonimity is variety. Maybe random processes have nothing to do with it. Maybe order created the cosmos, and randonimity mixes it.

Perhaps God created the heavens and the Earth.

Tastes Like Baloney (A Taste of Evolution)

Ice cream and spoiled beef, clorox bleach and antifreeze.
Have you ever wondered why you have taste buds?

Eating lunch suddenly became a problem in trying to understand our supposed evolutionary structure. It seems that if the separating factor is survival of the fittest, our sense of taste has gone disastrously wrong. According to an article on Bio-Medicine.org, "The endless struggle for survival in nature inevitably boils down to finding food and eluding predators." (1)

If evolution is true, why do we have taste buds?
Taste buds are almost entirely worthless in the evolutionary sense.

Ok, imagine this -- you are suddenly cast into a primitive food-finding area (which could just mean there is no supermarket nearby). You know that some plants/foods are poisonous, while others are safe and beneficial. You put one in your mouth, and it tastes . . . good. Sorry friend, but your evolutionary mechanics just killed you.

Good!? Why does it taste good? Why does it make you smile or frown? If evolution is true, I would expect it to taste either harmful or prosperous. Why does my body make a distinction between an apple and an orange, but has some trouble between parsnips and poison hemlock? (2)

Taste buds often fool and mislead us. It is not uncommon for us to like what is really poison, and dislike that which is good for us. Antifreeze tastes very good, but is a deadly poison. While you are preparing to reply that it is man-made, I am pondering all of the natural plants that are the same way. Many (if not most) of the best-for-you vegetables taste so nasty that we could not choke them down (and they are not sold in stores because no one would buy them). The taste of some might even cause us to vomit them up again. Why has our evolution so destroyed us?

What benefit is there to taste? To be beneficial, taste ought to detect the difference between poison and non-poison.
But taste buds give like and dislike, enjoyment, pleasure, and disgust. None of these are survival instincts. How did something like this come through the survival of the fittest? Why something so worthless to our survival? Why don't we only detect poison, or protein, or indigestibility?

But if there is a God who created us in His image--
If we were modeled after a God who has likes and dislikes, enjoyments, pleasures, and disgusts--
Why, then it makes perfect sense.




(1) http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-3/Can-a-taste-for-poison-drive-speciation-3F-1817-1/
(2) http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/weedguide/singlerecord.asp?id=550
http://webecoist.com/2008/09/16/16-most-unassuming-yet-lethal-killer-plants/

Hilarious!

Humor is a powerful thing. It lowers stress, makes us feel better about ourselves, and helps us to live longer. It's a generally non-threatening way to share ideas, a low-key way to connect and share with people, and an unintimidating way to find out what people are like.

Humor is in the unexpected, the abnormal, and in the known falsity. It's the punch line of the joke we didn't see coming; it's the association of two words we would not usually associate; it's in Wiley Coyote who does not fall until after he looks down. It's in the slap-stick of unexpected injury or "failure;" it's directed at someone who is accidentally outside a social norm (falling in public, having one's hat blown off, etc); and found in the sarcasm and satire of speaking the opposite of the truth. For the sake of this discussion, I am not including vulgar, crude, or "bathroom" humor, which produce laughter by bold discussion of inappropriate topics (and often only nervous laughter).

It may be observed that positive humor is only one small step from all things most negative. Humor is in the unexpected, and so humor is closely related to fear. The unexpected can bring laughter or terror and sometimes both in sequence. The abnormal can be funny, piteous, or appalling. The falsity --the thing not true-- can be uproariously hilarious, or it can start a belief that sends millions to miserable deaths.
An unexpected abnormality that seems too strange to be true is one of the greatest terrors in life. And though it's only one nanometer from hilarious laughter, it is horrible terror.

Death is often unexpected, but it is rarely funny. Disease, bodies missing limbs, and atypical government activity are all abnormal, but they hardly ever cause us to laugh. Cults have fed people untruths, and then committed mass suicide. People have believed lies that have led them to their deaths. Whole nations have been deceived, and created the atrocities of Nazi Holocaust and Communist repression. People have taken falsity as truth, and it's not funny at all.


Applying ...
I have been thinking about two approaches to an idea. One person sees the idea itself, and may think it funny, but harmless. Another sees what the idea says, or may say, and may be terrified. Often, the latter is labeled "overreacting," "closed minded," or "conspiracy theorist." But it's possible this person sees more than the first person is able to see. Who can see the results of something that should be humorous?

• I was first introduced to this idea when watching an old show that had some rather shady, not-quite-suggestive, and only almost compromising scenes. I was informed later that back when the show first aired, it would have been absolutely hilarious, because all of those things were seen as "known falsities." No one would have even thought about doing them, so they were funny on screen. They are not funny now, because now they are true.
  
  
• Tarzan may have been intended to just be funny (though I will agree that it's just as possible it may have had a specific agenda). But if and when people start believing it, it's not so funny anymore.
  
  
• The Da Vinci code should have been an enjoyable humorous novel -- except that it was believed.
  
  
• When The War of the Worlds was first aired on radio --a harmless story with a funny satire-- it created mass panic, because many thought it was true. By the way, we consider it a "harmless story" because we believe it is a "known falsity," but if such aliens ever did come to earth, we would find no humor in War of the Worlds anymore.
  
  
• Veggie Tales' Dave and the Giant Pickle is hilarious. But it wasn't funny to the Sunday School teacher whose young students were insisting that in the Bible, David's sheep fell over.
  
  
• Darwin's Origin of the Species should have been one of the greatest comedies of all time. But is has turned to terror, because it was believed.

When someone says "this idea has the potential to cause great disaster," do not write them off. They are simply stating what the world has been experiencing for centuries.
It is our duty as humans to find the truth and live according to it. Untruth is funny, but untruth that is believed is terror-ible.
Truth is found in the Bible; the Word of God. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." - John 8:34
It is our duty to find and know the truth.

On a practical note, perhaps if something is presented as untrue, then no one believes it (even impressionable young people). The danger is greatest when something is presented in the most believable way possible, because it is "so unbelievable." Perhaps some have done too great of a job making their story believable.

I thought of this last comment because some things don't seem to have created danger.
Roadrunner is funny. I suppose it could be disastrous if someone believed it. But it's one of those old cartoons that is great, and hilarious. And I don't know anyone who has believed it.

Evolution and Economics (Evolution 2)

Evolution and Economics (Evolution 2)
Survival of the Fittest in Everyday Life

The theory of evolution is based on a few primary tenets.
1) There is no God, and everything that is is a result of natural processes.
2) Mutations occur that introduce new beneficial information.
3) Natural selection weeds out the lower species.

This is a very simplistic synopsis, of course. But this is the basic starting ground for a description of the so-called evolutionary process.

What I have observed is that there are very few people who really truly believe in evolution. In fact, many of the strongest opponents of evolution do not really believe it in a way that affects their entire life. More specifically, I see evolution missing from modern economics.


Let us expand on the principle we observe called natural selection. Natural selection is the process whereby better-equipped life forms are separated from the less-equipped. It is nature at work, and we see it everywhere. Collies do not survive in the arctic because they are not well equipped for such an environment. Polar Bears, on the other hand, survive quite well.

According to the theory of evolution, it was this natural process, also called “The Survival of the Fittest,” that isolated and solidified the beneficial mutations into new creatures. These new life forms were better-equipped than the former, and thus survived in a superior manner. Any negative mutations or poorly-equipped life forms were eliminated.

Now, one who truly believes in evolution understands this process to be good. And not merely good, but absolutely essential to life itself. For the progress of species to continue (and it must), Natural Selection must be constantly eliminating the poorer life forms. This insures that negative mutations are not perpetuated.

However, none of us really believes in evolution.


In recent months, the USA has been faced with economic crisis. We have seen a major decline in our stock market, in our housing industry, and more specifically, the crash of several major banks. Much of this revolves around our addiction to credit. Mortgages, double mortgages, and debt-collateralized loans have thrown us into a mess.
Our government recently decided to “bail-out” two major companies who were faced with bankruptcy.

We gave money to those who could not pay their mortgages. What about those people who HAVE paid their mortgages? We have bailed out the companies who have been in bad business and it has come back to bite them. What about those companies that are soundly operated? What have we done?

We do not believe in evolution. We do not really believe in the continued progression of our own species. Natural Selection would have bankrupted the companies who were ill-equipped; it would have killed those unable to pay their mortgages; it would have broken the country that lives on money it doesn't have. Natural Selection would have advanced those better-equipped. It would have weeded out the weakest of our species and retained the more fit. Survival of the Fittest would have insured our continued evolution.

But evolution is not true. None of us believes it. We like to talk about it, for it allows us to ignore God. But when the press comes, deep down, we all know that man is not the result of a natural process. Man is special, completely unique and different from all other creation. The survival of mankind is not a step of the evolutionary process; it is the act of God. We have a responsibility to our own kind, not because we happen to be the highest life form right now, but because we are spiritual beings, made in the image of God.