Debate Coming Up

[HMS_Beagle]

It seems that Nye didn't understand Ham's distinction between "observational science" and "historical science". Nye kept thinking that Ham was talking about different laws of physics in each of those areas.

Pretty disappointing "debate".

Ham was his usual lying tap-dancing Gish-galloping evangelizing self, exactly as expected.

Nye's knowledge of non-astronomy related sciences was a lot weaker than I hoped and he let Ham skate on some pretty blatant misstatements.

Sadly the only winner will be Ham and his phony museum for all the additional publicity he got from the national media.

[Soyeong]

It seems that Nye didn't understand Ham's distinction between "observational science" and "historical science". Nye kept thinking that Ham was talking about different laws of physics in each of those areas.

Ya, I agree. It seems to me that the ice layers that formed over the planes shows that the layers are due to cooling heating patterns rather than yearly cycles. I also would like a better explanation for why the age of the tree found in the rock layer was different from the rocks. I would have liked to see what the astronomer thought of red shift and expansion instead of just denying any evidence that the universe was older and I'm surprise Nye didn't press more strongly on that point. Nye bringing up the telephone game was painful.

Overall, I think the Q and A would have been much better if they had been given 10 minutes to ask the other person questions rather than posing questions that never got answered.

[seer]

I think Bill Nye clearly won this debate. Ken Ham seemed halting and unprepared. One of the biggest points was the fossil record and the flood. If these fossil were laid down by a flood they would not look like they do. All the animals, like modern mammals, and dinosaurs should be mixed together. They are not, and Nye made the point that if you did find even one of these cross overs it would undermine the TOE. The other point was about the Ark - if it really was a universal flood Ham said you would only need about 7,000 pairs as the parent populations for all or most of the species we see today (conservative estimate of 16 million from Nye) - And like Nye said you would need a superfast speciation to get to that number today - something like 11 new species a day. We just don't see that.

[rogue06]

It seems that Nye didn't understand Ham's distinction between "observational science" and "historical science". Nye kept thinking that Ham was talking about different laws of physics in each of those areas.

IIRC, "Operational science" actually is a term made up by the YECs over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG -- Ham's group) and used in their opposition to the Big Bang (kind of ironic considering how many atheists opposed it considering its religious implications), abiogenesis and evolutionary theory and AFAICT not considered a valid scientific term. What historical science can, and has, been compared to is "experimental science" which is a different kettle of fish as the term is used quite differently by philosophers of science than how evolution deniers utilize "operational science."

Philosophers of science consider both historical and experimental science as entirely valid and that various scientific disciplines and fields can employ both approaches. Moreover, they do not assert that one approach is more valid or empirically verifiable than the other which is the opposite of what YECs try to imply.

From the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA - a Christian organization of scientists who "investigate[s] any area relating Christian faith and science"):

Attack the Reliability of Historical Sciences

"Even though we cannot directly observe events in the ancient history of nature, can we by a logical analysis of historical evidence reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe? Most young-earth creationists say NO. They challenge the credibility of all historical sciences that claim the evidence indicates an old earth and universe. They ask 'Were you there? Did you see it?', and imply that 'no' means 'then you can't know much about it.' Their skepticism about historical science is similar to the postmodernism of radical relativists who challenge the reliability of all science by claiming that scientific evidence is always inadequate, so the conclusions of scientists must be determined by their nonscientific beliefs. But despite this postmodern skeptical relativism, when we ask "is historical science reliable?" it's easy to answer "yes" and here is why. Although historical data is limited, since we cannot do controlled lab experiments, historical science is empirical (based on observations) with plenty of observations available, and scientists have developed methods to reduce the practical impact of data limitations. Occasionally there are rational reasons for caution, but in most areas (and for all important questions about age) most scholars who carefully examine the methods of historical science will confidently agree that "


Source

As an aside I should note that trying to determine how particular historical events occurred (historical science) is the basis of forensic sciences -- something I don't think YECs ever complain about when it is used to convict someone of a crime.

Furthermore, when scientists do make a distinction between historical science and research that is aimed at identifying laws (experimental science) they aren't declaring that there exists a neat clean line between them or saying, as noted above, that one is more reliable than the other.

1.4 Historical Particulars and General Laws

Some sciences try to discover general laws; others aim to uncover particular sequences of historical events. It isn't that the "hard" sciences only do the former and the "soft" sciences strive solely for the latter. Each broad discipline contains subareas that differ in how they emphasize one task or the other.

...

Laws take the form of if/then statements. Isaac Newton's universal law of gravitation says that the gravitational attraction between any two objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The law does not say that the universe contains two, four, or any number of objects. It just says what would be true if the universe contained objects with mass.

In contrast, astronomers typically will be interested in obtaining information about a unique object. Focusing on a distant star, they might attempt to infer its temperature, density, and size. Statements that provide information of this sort are not if/then in form. Such statements describe historical particulars and do not state laws.

This division between nomothetic ("nomos" is Greek for law) and historical sciences does not mean that each science is exclusively one or the other. The particle physicist might find that the collisions of interest often occur on the surface of the sun; if so, a detailed study of that particular object might help to infer the general law. Symmetrically, the astronomer interested in obtaining an accurate description of the star might use various laws to help make the inference.

Although the particle physicist and the astronomer may attend to both general laws and historical particulars, we can separate their two enterprises by distinguishing means from ends. The astronomer's problem is a historical one because the goal is to infer the properties of a particular object; the astronomer uses laws only as a means. Particle physics, on the other hand, is a nomothetic discipline because the goal is to infer general laws; descriptions of particular objects are only relevant as a means.

The same division exists within evolutionary biology. When a systematist infers that human beings are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas, this phylogenetic proposition describes a family tree that connects three species. The proposition is logically of the same type as the proposition that says that Alice is more closely related to Berry than she is to Carl ... Reconstructing genealogical relationships is the goal of a historical science.

Sober continues by noting that some evolutionary biologists are utilizing the sort of mathematical modeling that isn't historical in this sense, but in fact instead seeks after the type of general "if-then" statements which include scientific laws. IOW, evolutionary theory is really both a "nomothetic" science as well as being an historical science.

One other thing, I find it incredibly ironic that for all the carping that evolution deniers do about historical science, Casey Luskin, the vocal Intelligent Design proponent, seeks to legitimatize ID by proclaiming that "Intelligent Design Is a Historical Science, Just Like Darwinian Evolution."

[rogue06]

Ya, I agree. It seems to me that the ice layers that formed over the planes shows that the layers are due to cooling heating patterns rather than yearly cycles.

Having missed the debate (working) I'm assuming that this is a reference to the "Lost Squadron" in Greenland. Misconceptions concerning the "Lost Squadron" continue to abound pushed by YEC websites and publications in an attempt to discredit ice cores. But they leave out a whole slew of awkward details along the way.

First, that they got buried in this manner is hardly surprising. If you park some planes on an active glacier in an area that averages between 6 and 7' of snow per year in Greenland and wait a few decades and nobody should be shocked that they got buried like that^[1]

[shunyadragon]

Considering the circumstances of the debate 'Nye won hands down.' Despite miscues and problems, Ken Ham offered nothing of substance, and appeared clumsy and unprepared. His only argument through the whole debate is, I believe the Bible Creation story is literal and true because Jesus believed it.'

[seer]

His only argument through the whole debate is, I believe the Bible Creation story is literal and true because Jesus believed it.'

Well if a young earth was necessarily grounded in the teachings of Christ then that would settle it for me.

[phank]

A good review here:

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/bill-n...s-and-who-won/

And another one here:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblo...-creationists/

An online unscientific poll by the Christian Science Monitor had Nye "winning" the debate 92% to 8%

[shunyadragon]

Well if a young earth was necessarily grounded in the teachings of Christ then that would settle it for me.

I am not taking sides in this thread as to whether the literal Creationism is grounded in the teachings of Christ. Ken Ham believes it is others do not believe it is a matter of fact of what people believe.

The bottom line is he did not present any other coherent argument for his literal view.

[phank]

For a different angle, here is a YEC reviewing the debate:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/...am-nye-debate/

[phank]

I think a key question was asked, right at the end of the debate: IF you should be wrong, what would convince you of this?

Nye: Evidence
Ham: Nothing

As a contrast between approaches, that's as succinct and accurate as it gets.

[shunyadragon]

For a different angle, here is a YEC reviewing the debate:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/...am-nye-debate/

I read over this carefully, and found the same theme as Ken Ham claimed. Their argument and the review avoided any reference to actual evidence to support the YEC view, but to present strictly a theological justification of YEC. This is some what in contrast to AIG where historically they have tried to present evidence for YEC. This is a new twist where they are uncomfortable trying to present actual physical evidence for support on a public forum.

I support Nye and his efforts and bravery to present the scientific view in a public form, and doing this he did not give any credence to the bizarre YEC view. More of this needs to be done to expose the public to the ridiculousness of the YEC agenda.

[Joel]

IIRC, "Operational science" actually is a term made up by the YECs over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG -- Ham's group) and used in their opposition to the Big Bang (kind of ironic considering how many atheists opposed it considering its religious implications), abiogenesis and evolutionary theory and AFAICT not considered a valid scientific term. What historical science can, and has, been compared to is "experimental science" which is a different kettle of fish as the term is used quite differently by philosophers of science than how evolution deniers utilize "operational science."

Philosophers of science consider both historical and experimental science as entirely valid and that various scientific disciplines and fields can employ both approaches. Moreover, they do not assert that one approach is more valid or empirically verifiable than the other which is the opposite of what YECs try to imply.

From the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA - a Christian organization of scientists who "investigate[s] any area relating Christian faith and science"):

As an aside I should note that trying to determine how particular historical events occurred (historical science) is the basis of forensic sciences -- something I don't think YECs ever complain about when it is used to convict someone of a crime.

Furthermore, when scientists do make a distinction between historical science and research that is aimed at identifying laws (experimental science) they aren't declaring that there exists a neat clean line between them or saying, as noted above, that one is more reliable than the other.

Sober continues by noting that some evolutionary biologists are utilizing the sort of mathematical modeling that isn't historical in this sense, but in fact instead seeks after the type of general "if-then" statements which include scientific laws. IOW, evolutionary theory is really both a "nomothetic" science as well as being an historical science.

One other thing, I find it incredibly ironic that for all the carping that evolution deniers do about historical science, Casey Luskin, the vocal Intelligent Design proponent, seeks to legitimatize ID by proclaiming that "Intelligent Design Is a Historical Science, Just Like Darwinian Evolution."

I don't know how evolution deniers commonly use the terms.
But I just think there is an actual distinction to be made (which you seem to agree) and that it is a useful distinction. And that Nye failed to understand the distinction and thus failed to understand some arguments that Ham made. And I didn't hear Ham saying that historical science is invalid. He seemed to agree that both of their positions fell into the category of historical science (he even had an illustration making that point). Crime scene investigation (forensics) I think is a good example.

The significance of the distinction is that, being different fields of knowledge, they have different kinds of evidence and different methodologies appropriate to them. Something like forensics deals primarily with circumstantial evidence. That's not to say that it's bad evidence or that nothing can be derived from it. Just that it's different, and that the differences should be acknowledged. Courts of law too treat circumstantial evidence differently from direct evidence.

[seasanctuary]

What I heard was Ham claiming secular science borrowed the notion of "uniformity of nature" from Christianity, then Ham claiming nature isn't uniform enough to know anything about what happened before humans were around to observe it directly.

[Jonathandavid]

What I heard was Ham claiming secular science borrowed the notion of "uniformity of nature" from Christianity, then Ham claiming nature isn't uniform enough to know anything about what happened before humans were around to observe it directly.

...which kind of defeats the whole idea of uniformity. Such a notion is only useful if it allows you to predict how nature behaves when there is nobody around to directly observe it.