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.

Is Leadership Inborn, or Trained in Early Years?

The authors of my current Master's textbook, Tolbert and Hall (2009), explained that there are the “big five” personality characteristics that are commonly associated with leadership.

They are

“1. 'Surgency' (or extraversion)

2. Conscientiousness

3. Emotional stability

4. Agreeableness or cooperativeness

5. Intellect” (p. 93)(From Digman, 1990)

These five characteristics are associated with effective leaders. If a person is significantly lacking in some of these areas, it is likely he or she will not be an effective leader.

This research indicates that three of the five characteristics (conscientiousness, emotional stability, and cooperativeness) are usually trained during the childhood formative years. From personal experience and observation, it is very difficult to learn conscientiousness and emotional stability after one's formative years. One's intellectual capacity may be determined at birth, but requires training to reach its potential. I am unsure of how much true extraversion is inborn or learned. However, a pseudo-extraversion can be learned. At least four of the characteristics require training, and three of them must be during the formative years! Thus, those raising children are the ones responsible for forming leaders.

References:

Hall, R. H., Tolbert, P.S. (2009). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes, 10th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN:978-0-13-244840-6.

What is Loyalty?

I want to be a loyal person. I want to be loyal to my friends. What do I do when I find out that one of my friends is doing something wrong? Wouldn't it be disloyal to turn them in? Doesn't being loyal mean sticking by someone, no matter what? If I tell someone, I'll be a rat and a tattle-tale. I'll have broken the confidence of my friend. I would be a bad friend, wouldn't I? But helping them cover up seems wrong too. What do I do?

I believe that the understanding of the concept of loyalty is of critical importance here. For my business ethics class, I recently read an article by Robert A. Larmer that addresses this issue. Larmer addresses this issue so well, I will simply refer directly to his arguments.

I encourage you to take a few minutes and read the whole thing. I found it extremely helpful, and I believe you will also.

(All quotations below are from “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty” by Robert A. Larmer, which I read in Taking Sides by Newton, Englehardt, and Prichard, 2012, pp. 184-189. Most are sections taken from homework submitted for 560 - Business Ethics at Aspen University. Emphasis/bold mine. I have modified some words to apply more to friends than business. The meaning is unchanged.)

Larmer first explains that people often consider loyalty and confidentiality to be high duties and ethics. Reporting on someone “seems a violation of these duties and [many] argue that it is an act of disloyalty and hence morally wrong”. A person “must choose between two acts of betrayal, either her [friend] or the public interest, each in itself reprehensible”.

“Behind this view lies the assumption that to be loyal to someone is to act in a way that accords with what that person believes to be in her best interests. . . . I think this view . . . is mistaken . . . by ignoring the possibility that [reporting someone] may demonstrate greater loyalty than not [reporting]”.

“I am not, for example, disloyal to a friend if I refuse to loan her money for an investment I am sure will bring her financial ruin; even if she bitterly reproaches me for denying her what is so obviously a golden opportunity to make a fortune”.

“A more adequate definition of being loyal to someone is that loyalty involves acting in accordance with what one has good reason to believe to be in that person's best interests. . . . We [often] accept that a person thinking that something is in her best interests is a sufficiently good reason to think that it actually is. Other times, especially when we feel that she is being rash, foolish, or misinformed we are prepared, precisely by the virtue of being loyal, to act contrary to the person's wishes”.

Larmer presents three important points about loyalty.

“First, to the degree that an action is genuinely immoral, it is impossible to say that it is in the agent's best interests. We would not, for example, say that someone who sells child pornography was acting in his own best interests, even if he vigorously protested that there was nothing wrong with such activity. Loyalty does not imply that we have a duty to refrain from reporting the immoral actions of those to whom we are loyal”.

“The [friend who reports wrong behavior] may be demonstrating greater loyalty than the [friend] who simply ignores the immoral conduct, inasmuch as she is attempting to prevent her [friend] from engaging in self-destructive behaviour”.

“Second, loyalty requires that, whenever possible, in trying to resolve a problem we deal directly with the person to whom we are loyal. If, for example, I am loyal to a friend I do not immediately involve a third party when I try to dissuade my friend from involvement in immoral actions. Rather, I approach my friend directly, listen to his perspective on the events in question, and provide an opportunity for him to address the problem in a morally satisfactory way.” . . . “This principle of dealing directly with the person to whom the loyalty is due needs to be qualified, however. . . . There may arise cases where acting in a person's best interests requires that one act independently and perhaps even against the wishes of the person to whom one is loyal. Such cases will be especially apt to arise when the person to whom one is loyal is either immoral or ignoring the moral consequences of his actions. Thus, for example, loyalty to a friend who deals in hard narcotics would not imply that I speak first to my friend about my decision to inform the police of his activities, if the only effect of my doing so would be to make him more careful in his criminal dealings [and, I might add, give him time to hide the evidence before the police arrive]. . . . Neither is a loyal [friend] under obligation to speak first to [a friend] if it is clear that by doing so she places herself in jeopardy from [someone] who will retaliate if given the opportunity. Loyalty amounts to acting in another's best interests and that may mean qualifying what seems to be in one's own interests, but it cannot imply that one take no steps to protect oneself from the immorality of those to whom one is loyal. The reason it cannot is that, as has already been argued, acting immorally can never really be in a person's best interests. It follows, therefore, that one is not acting in a person's best interests if one allows oneself to be treated immorally by that person. Thus, for example, a father might be loyal to a child even though that child is guilty of stealing from him, but this would not mean that the father should let the child continue to steal”.

“Third, loyalty requires that one is concerned with more than considerations of justice. I have been arguing that loyalty cannot require one to ignore immoral or unjust behaviour on the part of those to whom one is loyal, since loyalty amounts to acting in a person's best interests and it can never be in a person's best interests to be allowed to act immorally. Loyalty, however, goes beyond considerations of justice, in that, while it is possible to be disinterested and just, it is not possible to be disinterested and loyal. Loyalty implies a desire that the person to whom one is loyal take no moral stumbles, but that if moral stumbles have occurred that the person be restored and not simply punished [this assumes, of course, that the person will be punished]. A loyal friend is not only someone who sticks by you in times of trouble, but someone who tries to help you avoid trouble”.

Therefore, Larmer argues, a true friend will always address any wrong or immoral behavior.

• First, if it isn't likely that there is danger of coverup or personal harm, you should talk directly with your friend and address it. Give them the opportunity to correct their behavior and make it right. You should not promise that you won't tell anyone. Instead, inform them that if they do not correct their wrong behavior, it is your duty to them, to God, and to others to involve other people.
• Second, if they do not amend their own behavior (or if they claim to and you find out they have not), it is right for you to turn them in to the proper authority. It is morally wrong for you to take their blame for them, cover up for them, or to allow yourself to be harmed, used, or mistreated in order to protect them in their wrongdoing.
• Third, depending on the situation, because you are their loyal friend, you should be the one to help restore them after their punishment and encourage them to lead a moral and upright life in the future.
  In some cases however, especially in dating/romantic relationships, in order for the person to be truly restored, you may have to step out of the relationship and perhaps even the friendship. If you sticking with them is helping prevent them from getting right with the Lord, you are hurting them, encouraging their immorality, and hindering them from redemption. As a loyal friend, in order to truly help them, you may have to step out of the relationship and trust God to take care of them. Seek Godly counsel from older, mature Christians if you are in a dating situation where you are aware of immoral behavior.

Does Limiting Price Gouging Work Against the Market?

A question I came up with in discussion from my MBA work. :)  If you're into supply and demand, I'd appreciate some discussion. :)

After reviewing issue #9 in Taking Sides by Newton, Englehardt and Pritchard, please give your opinion on this discussion question.

(
For reference if you do not have the book, you can find Zwolinski's argument here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1337654
and Snyder's Here:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/37353308/whats-matter-price-gouging
See also:
http://knowledgeproblem.com/2009/05/13/price-gouging-is-it-wrong-should-it-be-against-the-law/
)


Taking into account both Snyder's view and Zwolinski's views on price gouging and supply and demand in the wake of a natural disaster, does regulation on essential goods actually create a market disparity?  For example, let's consider generators and beer.  Snyder used generators as an example of something that merits price regulation because it is an essential good.  He also referred to beer as a non-essential good that does not need to be regulated.  There is no moral wrong with charging higher prices for it, because its lack does not hurt anyone, and those who purchase it should be only those who can afford the higher prices.  Understood.  Now, let's take a look at Zwolinski's discussion on signalling in supply and demand.  Let's say that generators are selling at a 30% profit, and the price is limited to that profit range.  Beer, however, is selling at a 150% profit, because of no price limitations.  If a vendor has limited space on his next supply truck, will he a) fill it with generators, or b) fill it with beer?

In this instance, Zwolinski's argument can be clearly seen.  It appears, in fact, that limiting price gouging creates incentive to NOT supply the needs that are most important.  If there were no price limitations on the generators, they would command a premium price, and vendors would be more likely to attempt to secure a greater supply.  If the essentials are regulated, and the non-essentials are not, the market actually creates incentives for vendors to focus on the non-essentials.

What are your thoughts?

Communism vs. Capitalism

Just read part of the 1848 Communist Manifesto and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for my Business Ethics class. Below is part of my essay in response.  I didn't have time to write as much as I wanted. :)

"Newton, Englehardt, and Prichard (2012) stated, “Adam Smith was absolutely correct if he is taken to be describing capital formation; but when it comes to the distribution of the wealth the free market has created, his mechanisms have no way of ensuring justice” (p. 3). So capitalism is indeed an excellent way to create capital. So why doesn't a society adopt a Marxist approach to the distribution of the wealth that capitalism has created? There is a significant problem with the communistic approach to re-distribution of wealth. The re-distribution methods espoused in communism undermine the motivating forces behind capitalism. In other words, while in the process of re-distributing wealth, communism eliminates the very mechanism that is creating wealth. The result is that capital creation will diminish, eventually dropping the standard of living of everyone in the economy, but most often the poor, who are the very people communism claimed to be trying to help.

When working with theories and models, it is of crucial importance to know if the model accurately represents reality. Capitalism and communism are both models for the handling of economy. Which represents reality best? Capitalism is based on the observation that humans are generally self-seeking. Self-interest motivates a willingness to work in people who otherwise would be unwilling to work. Hyeonseo Lee is a woman who escaped from North Korea. She described an incident that had a profound impact on her. She saw people dying from lack of basic needs, and everyone else just passed by them. “Nobody helped them, because they were so focused on taking care of themselves and their families” (Hyeonseo, 2013). Sometimes, those of us who live in a very prosperous society where taking care of others seems like second nature can forget about what happens when everyone is suffering. The model of capitalism fits what we observe of basic humanity. People are willing to work to better themselves. In the Bible, Proverbs 16:26 observes, “The appetite of laborers works for them; their hunger drives them on”. But if others will take care of them, their motivation for work lessens. The Bible warns against handouts. Thessalonians 3:10 says, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Communism, on the other hand, argues that people are willing to work for a common good, even at a relative loss to themselves. “True communism depends on human nature being basically altruistic” (Communism vs. Capitalism, 2013). There may be some truth observable in this to a point. But as I studied in other textbooks, people assign value to their altruistic work, thereby actually gaining personal value in exchange for what they give away. What happens when this personal value is gone? One can observe that people are generally unwilling to make sacrifices that hurt themselves unless they can see some gain from it. For example, if everyone in a society works an 8-hour job each day, and all are taken care of by the government with an equal “wage”, it is likely that everyone will continue happily. However, would someone in this situation be willing to work a 12-hour day while everyone else works only an 8-hour day? Not unless he can see a benefit from doing so? That benefit may be personal betterment, (such as overtime in capitalism), betterment of another, avoidance of punishment, etc. But if he cannot see any result from it, and if he is given a choice, human nature indicates that he will avoid it. However, capitalism appeals to this specific element of human nature. A person is willing to make a sacrifice for the betterment of himself or the betterment of another from which he derives personal value.

Therefore, the model of capitalism best matches reality and human nature. It may not be the perfect model, and it certainly does not solve all the ills of mankind. But capitalism meets the reality of human nature. It understands human nature, and builds upon it a system proven to generate wealth.

I would add however, that the best implementation I am aware of is capitalism guided by Biblical / Christian morality. Capitalism alone certainly allows for certain groups of people to take advantage of other groups of people (communism also allows for this). Capitalism guided by moral principles may be the best approach. The best examples of the implementation of capitalism that I am aware of are where capitalism operates inside a set of cultural expectations that are distinctly Biblical / Christian morals. People may not realize the origin of the values they hold, but they happen to match. These values help to keep the selfish tendencies of mankind in check. For example, the United States has a highly-developed business ethics system which brings capitalism and biblical morality together into a society and economy that has been one of the strongest on earth."

Quoted block from Module 1, Completed Assignments. David Lorimer. 560 – Business Ethics. Aspen University. Professor Sherrie Campbell. Submitted 03/23/2013.

References:

 Newton, Englehardt, Prichard. (2012). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society, 12th/E. McGraw-Hill ISBN: 9780073527352 .

 Lee, Hyeonseo. (2013). My escape from North Korea. Retrieved March 22, 2013 from http://www.ted.com/talks/hyeonseo_lee_my_escape_from_north_korea.html .

9 Quick Tips for Writing a Convincing News Article

9 Quick Tips for Writing a Convincing News Article

… and other stories

We've all seen them – compelling news articles proving things that may not be true. Here are some quick tips to write your own top-selling news articles about anything!

1. Make a Bold Statement in the Teaser Headline

It doesn't have to be true. In fact, it's probably most effective if it's not. This is the headline that everyone is going to see, so make it good. Most people aren't going to click on your article anyway, so make sure the teaser headline says exactly what you want them to believe.

Example: “Curiosity Rover: Water on Mars!”

2. Write a Compelling Article Title

Your article title needs to be true, at least technically. But since most people won't read the article, be sure that your title makes them believe what you want them to.

Example: “NASA's New Findings Prove Water on Mars?”

The question mark is your friend. Use it a lot, especially in the beginning paragraph.

3. Prove it in the Subtitle

If a reader likes your headline, chances are, he'll read the subtitle next. Again, this may be all he or she is reading, so be convincing, and use that question mark!

Examples: “Curiosity's latest samples indicate something many earthlings have long thought impossible. Have we found water on Mars at last?”
or

“The latest studies indicate a strong link between population growth and disease.”

4. The First Paragraph is your Argument

The majority of people who have read this far won't read past the first paragraph. Be sure that the first paragraph implies your conclusion. You want people to believe your statements in the first paragraph, assuming you prove them later in the article. (Please note: Proof is not necessary, see below)

5. Use Words Like “Linked” and “Indicates” a Lot

Research indicates the use of special words is correlated with an increased percentage of people who believe what is implied. In 98% of cases, language is linked with people's specific beliefs.

Example: * clears throat *

Bonus: “May have” also sounds like proof. “Early reports indicate that the man may have embezzled as much as $1 Million dollars.” (Even if the guy is innocent, this kind of language convicts him in the readers' minds.)

6. More Then 90% of Effective Articles Use Statistics

You must have statistics. A full 87% of people surveyed indicated that they are more likely to believe a claim if it is backed up by statistics. Don't worry. You can prove whatever you want with statistics, even the opposite of what the statistics originally indicated (remember that word?). You don't have to pay thousands of dollars to commission a survey. All you need is some carefully spun words.

7. Eyewitness Interviews Tell the Story

Be sure you include quotes. If you have relevant statements from an authority, use them. But for most news articles, a quote from any eyewitness will win your audience. Your witness can be an authority, a passerby, or a drunk – it doesn't matter. Your advantage? You get to chose what words show up in your article.

Examples:  Susan Thomas, one of the first people to witness the scene, cried, “It was terrible, just terrible.”
or

“I was drinking a cold pop, and all of a sudden, I had sharp chest pains.” (The soda might be irrelevant to the story, but by using the quote this way, one can indicate the pop may have caused the chest pains).

8. Always Tell the Truth

But save it for the very last paragraph or second-to-last paragraph. Most people won't read it anyway, so this is where you can be honest to preserve your integrity. Don't counteract your previous words. Just clarify them. Remember all those “linked”, “indicates”, and “may have”s you used earlier? Here is where you clarify them. Oh, but you can always throw in a statement like “at this time” to make your readers believe your statements will be proven true in the future.

Example: “As of the time of writing, NASA has not confirmed these statements. But scientists are enthusiastically awaiting Thursday's press conference. A NASA spokesperson promised that NASA has “some really exciting news to share.”

9. The Comments

Ignore them. Haters Gonna Hate.

For a full example that I wrote just to illustrate, read:

http://dlorimer.blogspot.com/2013/02/research-finds-link-between-high.html

For more great examples, check out Yahoo! News

This one is particularly good:

http://news.yahoo.com/dark-matter-finally-found-big-news-coming-soon-144840916.html

http://news.yahoo.com/rare-star-explosion-creates-galaxys-youngest-black-hole-115516887.html

I wanted you to read this one (it's part of what my previous blog was based on), but it appears that yahoo has removed it.  (Yahoo's story was just like what I describe above, unlike the news story their story was based on).  Here is their title:

Mars Curiosity rover finds water, simple carbon compounds

Research Finds Link Between High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Hurricane Katrina; Other Natural Disasters

Is the taste worth the risk? More people are abandoning soft drinks and other unhealthy foods once they discover what it is truly doing to them. Is death the latest to be added to the list, including diabetes and obesity?

High-fructose corn syrup is on the chopping block again today, after recent reports found links to Hurricane Katrina. A study released yesterday by Anheuser Busch called attention to the high death rate among HFCS users. This follows an independent study, commissioned in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, which suggests that victims of natural disasters are often HFCS consumers. “The public needs to be aware of the danger”, said the New York City Commissioner. “They should have had earlier warning.”

But perhaps the most shocking findings relate to Hurricane Katrina. Katrina claimed the lives of over 1800 people in 2005. When asked about their deceased loved ones' lifestyles, many survivors admitted the victims consumed HFCS. “The last time I saw him, he was out on the porch,” Mary Jenkins managed, between sobs. “He was just relaxing with his drink. He had no idea that would be the last thing he ever did.”

But in fact, research now indicates that as many as 87% of the hurricane victims had used HFCS within the last week. And when that's added to the fact that HFCS is linked to obesity, diabetes, poor grades, low self-image, depression, and fatigue, many people are beginning to wonder why it isn't already illegal.

It may be too early to know for sure. The FDA has not yet reviewed any of the most recent claims, and HFCS remains on the list of approved ingredients for large-scale consumption in the United States. One advocacy group says that may change, however. They plan to take HFCS to task with an FDA panel this June.

Source:
Baloney Network - "All the news that isn't true."