Great job on your posts last week. I will be entering your participation grade every Friday in powerschool.
The last couple of weeks we have been discussing topics within our unit on evolution. Tim U. sent me this link yesterday and I have made it the focus for this post.
Go to the link below and watch some of the recent debate of Bill Nye and Ken Ham on evolution vs. creationism. It is quite long so feel free to dip in anywhere and view a segment. What I would like you to do in the blog post is to identify one argument presented by either man that you find intriguing, agree with, disagree with, or you simply had not heard before.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham
I particularly liked the argument that Bill brought out about the Grand Canyon, and how all of the fossils are layered, not mixed (suggesting that species extinctions happen over time, not just from one gigantic flood). This argument was intriguing, not because it was particularly inspiring or well thought out, but because of how well Bill scientifically debated a religious idea using pure observation.
ReplyDeleteThis debate was interesting to listen to, with two contradicting sides of belief and evidence. I thought it was interesting how Ham claimed that the reason why scientists were able to decipher what they have about evolution or the creation of the world is based on God. Ham said that the laws of logic, nature and uniformity nature could not be used without the existence of God. I thought this was interesting because I thought there was no strong way to back this up with actual tangible facts. However, as Ham continued to talk he brought up the discussion of how the past of the Earth is closely related and compared to the present. Ham claims that the assumptions that are made with these comparisons could not be true because the past and the present aren't necessarily in relation to each other with the process of how species and the Earth came to what it is now.
ReplyDeleteEven though Ham was unsuccessful in swaying my views, he did bring up a lot of interesting points that I had never thought of. It made me think when he stated that today's biology textbooks are not promoting religious freedom, but in fact forcing naturalism, "their religion," on students. I also found his statements about Noah's Ark intriguing. The way he described the fact that there were many kinds (instead of species) of animals actually made logical sense, and I can see how this could have led to later evolution. However, I do agree with Nye's overall viewpoint, and I feel as though Ham failed to address the main questions. He did make many strong arguments, but none actually refuted the Big Bang or evolution in a satisfactory manner.
ReplyDeleteNear the end of the debate Bill Nye answered a few questions by saying that he does not know the answer (such as how did consciousness come from nothing) and that the joy of science is to discover those answers. Ken Ham replies each time saying that there's a book with all the answers, the Bible. I find it a poor attempt at science for Ham to say that all he believes about the universe is based on one text written by man [with the divine guidance of God]. Would he not agree that a text book supporting evolution is also a text written by man with divine guidance (following the Christian belief that through God all things are done)? No scientist could confidently state that they have based everything they believe on a single text book or scientific journal. Nye, like the rest of the scientific community, base their beliefs off the visible evidence in the universe as well as numerous scientific methods outlined in reputable texts. Ham's argument seemed to me to simply be a (failed) attempt to mold the proven facts of the universe into a Biblical timeline.
ReplyDeleteIn the twenty or so minutes that I listened to the debate, two arguments in particular – one from either side – struck me as very powerful, in their own unique style of delivery. Although I guess I’m not religious ENOUGH to the point of ignoring science, and so I am, by default, an evolutionist, I was surprised to find that both were equally reasonable, and that each had an equally reasonable basis. At around the halfway-point of the debate (when I decided to tune-in), Nye confirms that, through several lines of evidence, the stars are moving farther and farther away from one another. He goes on to not only prove this by explaining the most common explanation, that star movements are easily-measured using angle/time ratios, but also to make the deduction that if the stars are all drifting outwards, then if one was to go back billions of years in time they would find that those same stars would have had to have been very close together at some point, because their vectors all seem to have begun at a single location in the universe. Afterwards, he mentions that there is also an audible “cosmic background noise,” detectable by modern technology and indicative that there is, in fact, a sort of energy-dissipation taking place in outer space. Accordingly, these are all very suggestive of the need for a Big Bang to have begun each of these unison processes. Ham, of course, has very little support to directly disprove that the Big Bang took place. That said, he still makes an effective – or, at the very least, interesting – argument that radioactive dating, which is probably what we think to be our most indisputable proof that Earth must be more than six thousand years old (because it so often reveals readings which are many times that), is subject to so many unanswerable variables that it can hardly be as reliable as we think. And that two decaying objects, recovered from the same geologic stratum, can be and often HAVE BEEN dated millions of years from one another, which simply doesn’t make any scientific sense and puts the legitimacy of our accepted methods in question.
ReplyDeleteI have to laugh because I randomly clicked a spot in the video and began to watch, and it was Mr. Nye discussing how Noah's Ark does not make sense. What I found interesting about this part, though, was his discussion of the shape of the boat and how it could not function based on the previous performance of the Wyoming, the largest wooden schooner built. Interestingly enough, however, a cuniform tablet was recently turned into a museum or research facility (I can't remember which one) and was translated. What historians, etc, believe it to be, based upon its translation, though, and this is the most fascinating part, is a tablet addressing the making-of and details of Noah's Ark. Based on this tablet, it is now assumed (and historians agree that it makes more sense, now) that the boat was circular, much like other boats of the same time period - it was not oblong and ship-like the way our 21st century (and even 18th, 17th, 2nd, etc. century) minds have believed it. These boats, then, could theoretically be made bigger without buckling and twisting the way the Wyoming did. There are still issues with the Creationist point of view, though. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, ought to be read and taken in context - for instance, the people of that time essentially believed the end of the world was a few days/weeks/maybe months walk away. Therefore, there really weren't many animals/species in "the world." Just something to chew on. It is also important to realize that religion and science are not meant to be contradictory - Faith and science should and do work hand it hand. The Creationist theory does not agree with this, but MANY other religions/religious views do. God can have created every animal - the seven days may have been 6 million years, and He may have decided to (and it certainly seems as though He did) use evolution as a means of creating every creature. And as I mentioned above, it is important to read the Bible in context - the Old Testament, especially, is more important in the gist of the stories as opposed to the absolute and minute details - it is full of Truth, but not necessarily in the "literal" sense.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Noah's Arc, do you intend to see the new movie that is out on this theme? I hope to see it at some point.
DeleteMr. C
Throughout the debate, it seemed to me that Ham's arguments all seemed very weak and forced. To be fair, creationism has a lot less tangible evidence supporting it than evolution does, so it's proponents need to be a lot more creative and logical to come up with arguments. That being said, I don't think Ham succeeded. Arguing for creationism in today's society is more about defending the possibility of its existence than an attack at the validity of the theory of evolution because there is just too much evidence for evolution. At this point creationists' only option is to try and convince people that god somehow can fit into the evolutionary picture, such as saying that natural selection is somehow under divine instruction. The point that really surprised me was when Ham went so far as to cite two items, the laws of physics and the uniformity of nature, which I thought would substantially detract from the creationist argument, but which Ham insisted only makes sense within a biblical perspective. To me it was like he was trying to fold and force a puzzle piece into a spot where it didn't belong.
ReplyDeleteAround the 45 minute mark in the debate, Ken Ham makes an argue about the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution saying that Darwin ordered the races incorrectly in his model. Further enhancing his point, he referenced a book that was "published based on Darwin's theory" that said humans stemmed from five races and the highest race in the hierarchy were the European Caucasians. This is a very interesting claim, however I feel as though it slightly misinterprets Darwin's theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I personally do not see the big bang theory as any more plausible than a supreme being creating the earth there definitely are a lot more holes in the creationists theory of the earths 6000 year life span. Ham's argument about the laws of physics and how they had to be created in order to be observed seemed to me like a rather obvious and ignorant statement. This black and white thinking that many evolutionists and creationists have annoys me. What if neither party is right? What if the earth was created trillions of years ago by a creator and everything evolved from there? Could it be possible that the real answer is a combination or neither of the two theories? Both creationists and evolutionists have a lot of faith in their crazy theories but there isn't much proof to show that the world was created by God or by a large explosion.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the most challenging aspects of Creationism to believe is the theory that Earth is only a few thousand years old, compared to the multi-billion year old planet that scientists believe exists. One of the most difficult pieces of evidence that Ken Ham must denounce in his effort to convince us the Earth is merely 6,000 years old, is the explanation for continental drift. Today, scientists have discovered large similarities both organically and geographically between different continents suggesting a previous super-continent, Pangea. What the question specifically asked was how could continents moving at only centimeters a year cover the vast space they have separated from their original placement in only 6,000 years. Ham argued this question by saying that a great flood, causing the story of Noah's Ark, could have displaced water and recreated the surface of the Earth. In my opinion, the idea of a massive flood drastically reshaping the entire surface of the Earth seems a lot less plausible than suggesting that current trends we're seeing now simply just kept happening. "Observational science," as Ken Ham so manipulatively used throughout his argument, leads me to believe that since continents are moving now, it is more likely that they've been moving for billions of years rather than only 6,000.
ReplyDeleteI actually watched a good amount of this debate prior to this post. I was delighted by the respect that both men had for each other's views - it was more like a discussion, and a very admirable one. However, I don't like Ham's use of the term "historical science" because the Bible doesn't prove itself. Ham was very good at responding to the prompter with applicable quotes from the Bible, but that's not valid considering the merit of creationism is in question. The Bible has a lot of dead ends when dealing with WHY because the "explanations" it offers are based upon assumption or passed of as being a product of God's wondrous plan. However, science deals with HOW, which can be explained using present observations in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. I thought Ham's arguments were more passive as he resorted to claiming the Bible provides the only logical explanations as he did when arguing the beginning of the universe. But why does it have to be logical? Since when has science been exclusively logical? Well, then why is the human skeleton constructed of 206 bones? Why 112 (and possibly more) elements? Ham is answering WHY, when the real question is HOW.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm in the group of people who believe in evolution. I honestly dislike the way that Ken Ham tries to manipulate the definition of "science", and the fact that he's very displeased with how science is taught through most textbooks. I also dislike the idea of teaching intelligent design in public schools (which is still a hotly debated issue) because people base all of their ideas and arguments off of "It's in the Bible", and it seems like some people forgot that not everyone in this world is a Christian. The theory of evolution has a lot various types of evidence supporting it, with a large portion of it being through fossils and rocks. I'm also not totally convinced by all of Ham's interpretations of scientific evidence, since he basically just brings up the Bible for every argument. There are many different interpretations of the Bible, but there probably aren't nearly as many for fossils.
ReplyDeleteI also found some photos showing the interior of the Creation Museum where the debate was held : http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2310.html
While I respect Ken Ham's views, I still don't share them. While a Christian still respects Bill Nye's Views, they still don't share them. I know that I'll never change my views, and creationists probably won't ever change their views either. Everyone believes what they believe, and that's just the way of the world.
At the beginning of the debate, when Hem and Nye were debating the question "Is creation a viable model of origins in todays modern scientific era", I thought that Hem made a strange point. Hem was strongly arguing the idea that creationists are scientists. I have never really thought about this until now. It makes sense that people wouldn't necessarily think of creationists as scientists since they solely believe that a supernatural being created everything on Earth. This sounds pretty unscientific to me. I don't really agree with saying the creationism is scientific. There isn't much science behind saying that a supernatural being placed everything on Earth. To be considered a scientific theory, it has to be testable and falsifiable. There is no way that creationism could be testable or falsifiable. Aside from these issues, there is really no evidence that can be found to back up this idea. With the idea of evolution, there is much evidence that scientists have found to back up their idea. This doesn't seem to be the case. I am not saying that just because creationism isn't science, people can't believe it, but I do not think creationists should be considered scientists.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do believe Ham's argument was significantly weaker and lacked more evidence than Nye's approach, Ham did bring up some interesting points I had not previously thought about. A major point Ham makes is how one-sided the high biology books in modern public schools. Although I do support evolution based on the evidence given, I do find it interesting how the book dismisses other theories and fails to mention even the presence of the huge controversy that exists in the creationist evolutionist debate. That being said, I really disliked the argument Ham attempted to create by inventing historical science. In my opinion science should be based primarily on natural law and sound evidence, and to me it just seemed a lot of Ham's points used more theory, history, and a lot of opinions.
ReplyDeleteBoth Ken Ham and Bill Nye present interesting and plausible points during the debate. In one of Bill Nye's arguments I found most interesting, he said that there are currently about 16 million species on Earth today. He explains that if we accept Ken Ham's explanation that there were originally 7000 species on Earth, then there would have to be 11 new species on Earth every day. Obviously, he explains, this is just not likely, favoring the evolutionist theory. However, I also found it interesting when Ken Ham discussed the idea that all humans evolved from Adam and Eve. He said that while this belief is often initially dismissed because different races exist, it is actually possible. Ham cited research that showed that there are no significant genetic differences that show different races of people; instead, there is really just one race of humans.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think both of these beliefs can be accepted. Both the creationist and evolutionist theories have holes, and while many people firmly believe one theory or the other, I think they are complimentary. If a God created Earth, He may also have created the scientific mechanisms that control its progression. There is no definitive proof of either of the two theories; they are easiest to accept with the view that they make each other possible.
I thought Bill Nye`s argument in his opening statement about the Grand Canyon was interesting and really helped to prove his point. I never really thought about all the evidence that can be found in the Canyon and agreed with what Nye was saying. When I started watching the debate, I was biased becasue I believe evolution exists. I think it would be interesting to see what Ham has to say about bacteria evloving over a short period of time to create new strains resistant to drugs, like TB. I can only imagine how a creationist would support their theory with this evidence that supports evolution. I didn`t watch the whole debate, so they might have already covered this topic, but I think its solid evidence that species evolve.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really interesting what Bill Nye said about the age of the Earth and the fossil layers, especially in the Grand Canyon. The belief that the Earth is 4,000 years old is the main flaw in the creationism. Although the Great Flood could have caused the strata, it is unlikely that it was caused when the organisms were swimming or suspended in the water. However, I think that Ham had an slightly less compelling argument as well: we can't observe the past. Although we can make assumptions about what happened in he past, you can never actually know what happened.
ReplyDeleteKen Ham's point of creationists being able to be "real" scientists as well is very important. Bill Nye seems to believe that creationists and scientists are mutually exclusive. As Elizabeth mentioned earlier, if a God created the world, that does not mean that the scientific mechanisms evolutionists study are non existent. While I personally believe both views are realistic and intertwined, Ken Ham's goal to make creationism more well known is praiseworthy. I think his point of bringing up scientists who have demonstrated their ability to do "real" science, such as Raymond Damadian, but who are also creationists is valid. The religious beliefs of scientists should not play a part in whether or not they are capable of achievement. Hopefully, through Ken Ham's discussion, the public can see the importance of separating religious views from scientific ability.
ReplyDelete30 minutes into the debate, when Ken Ham was debating on behalf of creationism, he showed a video of Stuart Burgess. I thought it was interesting when Burgess said "I find that many of my colleagues and academia are sympathetic to the creationist view point, including biologists. They are often afraid because of the criticisms they'd get". I agree with Ham's argument that we should have the freedom to discuss what we believe without judgement, while some may disagree with the idea of creationism people should be allowed to discuss what they believe without the constant fear of being criticized. Ham went on to discuss where the natural laws of existence came from, which I thought was interesting as well, especially when he asked Bill Nye, "How do you account for the laws of logic and the laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God?" I found this interesting because it seems like a very valid question, which is why I believe both the ideas of creationism and evolutionism should be discussed in an open forum (similar to this debate) without extreme criticism or disapproval from the members in the discussion so that, perhaps, a theory can be reached as to how the world has come to be what it is today.
ReplyDeleteI watched part of Ken Ham's explanation of the difference between "historical science" and "observational science", and up to where Bill Nye was talking about the grand canyon. I think Ham had an interesting point in it, talking about how the two are considered completely different, and observational science is studied a lot more in-depth. I mean there was something in the news recently about ancient writing in Iraq that detailed Noah's Ark, so there's still some debate over what parts of the bible are true or false. But back to Bill Nye's argument, I was impressed by how he managed to use scientific evidence to back up all his points, it made his argument definitely the stronger of the two. For example, when he did the math on the ice snow layers, and how 170 winter-summer cycles would have to occur each year in order for the earth to only be 4,000 years old, that was solid evidence to prove his point. I think that, in a debate, the best way to make your idea seem good is if you have real, solid evidence for your case. And Bill Nye showed that really well.
ReplyDeleteI had heard enough to make my decision at the point where Ham thinks he justifies the Ark theory by saying that not every species needed to be on the Ark, and that only two of each "kind" were necessary to preserve their specific genetics in order to evolve later in the manner proposed by "observable science" which both groups believe in. This Flood and Ark theory, along with all the other unverifiable theories, has been supported by generalities and lack of evidence. This makes it hard for some, especially those who are religious, to reject these ideologic assumptions. However, when faced with the overwhelming mass of "observable" scientific evidence that Nye provides, it should be made easier to reject these ideas. Although for some reason, Ham rejects the theory that the natural laws we observe today were present in the past because we couldn't directly witness them in action. That belief right there is enough to condemn his own ideas as well as all scientific inquiries into the past, the Ark having an equal lack of eye witnesses. Unlike Nye, Ham spends most of the discussion trying to validate the credibility of other creationists, which is entirety unnecessary as nobody doubts their modern scientific prowess in the first place, just their unsupported belief of origins. He represents a minority for a reason, but he was right about one thing. His accent did make things a bit more interesting.
ReplyDeleteBill Nye made a great argument about experiments, observations and predictions. Scientists had predicted that the Big Bang produced a sound still detectable today, and through calculations they found the magnitude of this sound (undetectable by the human ear alone.) Later, two scientists had unintentionally discovered this "cosmic background sound" with a satellite. The Big Bang left this energy that when discovered by the satellite matched exactly the predictions achieved through mathematical calculations. This is striking evidence of the theory of evolution that cannot be backed by creationist ideology. Creationism also does not have the capability of making predictions, while evolutionists can create experiments, conclusions and predictions that help explain the origin of life and where life will be in the future.
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard about this debate, I was wondering how the scientist that believed in creationism would be able to speak for a long period of time on his ideas, trying to prove them to his audience. Although the majority of the scientific community disagrees with him, he did bring up some interesting points. One part that I watched, around thirty minutes into the debate, was when Ken Ham brought up the point of observation vs. interpretation. This topic I found some what interesting because of his examples of it. He talked about how he would view an area of sedimentary rock versus how Bill Nye would view it. Ham talked a lot about how observational science is completely different from historical science. He mentions how observational science is much more reliable because of the fact that we were not there to witness and record event that happened in the past. Although there is a lot of evidence against what Ham was arguing, he still made some interesting points that I had never thought about before.
ReplyDeleteThis debate was quite interesting to me. I've always believed in evolution but Ken Ham brought up some very interesting points as to why there is no such thing as evolution. One point particularly that he brought up was that we have evidence suggesting that the theory of Darwinism exists but it all depends on how we interpret that evidence. He explains that we have no actual facts, just opinions of what we think could prove darwinism. I thought this was a very valid point and it's interesting because I've never seen it from this side of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteEven though I have heard this argument stated multiple times, the way in which Ham, the pro-creationist paints his argument is rather violent. He states the following argument: "Public school textbooks are using the same word 'science' for observational and historical science. They arbitrarily define 'science' as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural. They present molecules-to-man evolution as fact. They are imposing the religion of naturalism/atheism on generations of students."
ReplyDeleteHam is arguing that the textbook writers are imposing a religion on the generations of students that are reading the books. I disagree that the textbook writers are imposing religion, therefore I am disagreeing with Ham's argument. I believe that there are many forms of creation and evolution books on the market and textbooks choose to teach the 'atheist' or naturalist version simply because that is the most objective and neutral way to explain evolution.
I was surprised by Mr. Ham’s statement that “you can’t observe the age of the earth,” and his distinction between historical and observational science. He brushed aside the evidence that Mr. Nye provided by joking that he could not respond to all the points Mr. Nye made. The effects of running water, freezing/thawing, and layers of snowfall are observable today. Why is it difficult for Mr. Ham to extrapolate from current observations to the time needed to form the layering phenomenon that Mr. Nye described, for instance in ice core samples, the Grand Canyon’s walls, and the organization of fossils from simple to more complex organisms. By the Principle of Maximum Parsimony, accumulations of sediment and natural selection, over a long period are a simpler explanation than the extraordinary feat of shipbuilding and animal handling required in the account of Noah’s Ark and the great flood. I also take issue with Mr. Ham’s claim that “students aren’t being taught to think critically and correctly about the origins issue.” We are taught that evolution is a hypothesis supported by collection and analysis of fossil, morphological and molecular evidence. Creationists ought to think critically about their hypothesis. For instance, Genesis does not account for preserving any plant life. Yet, a dove that could find no place to perch because water covered the land in Genesis 8:9 brought back an olive leaf a week later in Genesis 8:11. Also, the earth is a closed system, what was the source of the water that flooded the land and where could it go when it receded.
ReplyDeleteI really like this debate topic and I find it interesting to see how each side justifies their argument. I especially liked Bill Nye's explanation of the fossil layers proving evolution at the Grand Canyon and his contradiction to the possibility of a world-wide flood. Though Nye's argument was stronger and Ham generally failed to answer the essential questions, I agree with Ham's opinion that just because you are a creationist, does not mean you are to a scientist or that you are unintelligent. He proves this by giving multiple examples of creationists who have designed various technologies for scientific purposes. I also never realized, until Ham pointed it out, that school textbooks really don't allow very much religious freedom by solely teaching evolutionary beliefs. Though I agree with Bill Nye's side of this debate, I think students should be introduced to the creationist way of thinking and be allowed to form their own opinions.
ReplyDeleteWhen debating whether evolution or creationism should be taught in school I think it’s important to remember that for many students religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Many distinguished scientists support creationism and many religious individuals also support evolution. In fact, I remember watching a documentary in Baby Bio where a man who was interviewed stated he was deeply religious but also an evolutionist. He claimed that the evidence from his religious beliefs supported rather than undermined evolutionists’ observations. I actually think Ken Ham hit the nail on the head when he stated that "It's not the evidences that are different, it’s a "battle" over viewpoints.” The same evidence can be observed by both evolutionists and creationists but be interpreted in completely different ways. I don’t think students should necessarily be discouraged from the creationist viewpoint; however, I do see how in a public school setting (where there are multiple religions that differ from Christian beliefs) avoiding the creationists’ view in textbooks would be ideal. Just as Cassie previously posted, naturalist textbooks may be the most objective and neutral way to explain biology's core tenets. This may seem unfair, but for many Christian students they are exposed to creationism in religious education classes and evolution in public school systems.
ReplyDeleteMany of Ken Ham's points throughout the debate were illogical and unjustifiable. Most of his theory is based on the argument that we can't know anything for sure that we haven't directly observed except for the word of God. Since the Bible is the word of God, it must be true. This circular logic is the basis for most of his claims, which can hardly be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteHe also takes many opportunities to bring forwards scientists who believe in Creationism - rather than actual evidence - to show that creationism is not separate from the "secularist" view of science. In the past, a creationist group tried to compile a list of scientists who believed in creationism, to show the world how "widespread" this opinion was among scientists. In response, a list known as Project Steve was made that listed scientists named Steve (or any variation on that name). This list quickly grew to be much larger than the list of creationist scientists, showing how insignificant and inconsequential the former list was.
After viewing the majority of this debate I found myself thinking that, while I do believe in evolution over creation, Bill Nye did a terrible job in this debate. Nye's first mistake was in accepting to debate ham in the first place, why Nye would justify the creationist point of view by debating this fool is beyond me.Nye was debating a man who had nothing to lose, all this debate did was draw more attention to a extremely counter productive way of thinking. I am a practicing catholic, I believe that religion can teach some very valuable morals. But, I do not practice a blind following of my religion and as a result I believe in evolution. This issue has me started me thinking of one of the topics that is often brought up in our Honors Lit class, people use religion to explain what they consider to be the unexplainable. The origin of species now has the beginnings of an explanation therefore religion is no longer needed as a substitute for fact.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most compelling evidences in favor of evolution was something I read that Bill Nye would use in the debate -- I didn't see him use it from the portion that I watched. This evidence lies in the most basic of our genetics...chromosomes. The chromosomes of humans, orangutans, and two other primates were compared and there were all striking similarities except for one glaring exception: the 2nd chromosome. Humans have one second chromosome while others have "two" chromosomes at this spot. However, the human 2nd chromosome has within it two apparently-conjoined telomeres, suggesting that the two shorter chromosomes from the previous species -- earlier in evolution, that is -- joined at some point in evolution's process. The presence of the two telomere caps indicates that there is certainly a connection between the earlier dual forms and the present human form of the unified 2nd chromosome.
ReplyDeleteThe portion I dropped in on was Ken Ham's argument that the Bible should be read as historical science and should be taken literally, and that the sequence of events depicted in Genesis have literally happened. The problem with this argument is that if you read the Bible literally, there are two contradicting stories of Genesis that, while similar, would show that at least one depiction is incorrect, meaning that you cannot take the Bible literally. Genesis 1:26-27 "24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.""
ReplyDeleteThen cut to Genesis 2:18-20 "18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him." Right here, the same book, Genesis, has described two different stories of creation. The first one stated that God created all the animals and plant life, then created man and woman together. The second one stated that God created man first, then created animals, and later would go one to create woman. This right here shows that the Bible cannot be used as historical science, as even within itself there are contradictions not 40 passages from each other. While Ken Ham's arguments were centered around "science is a belief too and that shouldn't be taught in schools", using the Bible has historical fact, and using unjustified claims with no evidence. Bill Nye did a much better job in actually using evidence, such as the ice layers and fossils.
I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Ken Ham on his idea that creationism is equivalent with evolution from a philosophical viewpoint. We have observed too many species of creatures evolve from previous ones that it is simply absurd to think that we have not, as humans, done the same. Science has brought up numerous arguments in favor of evolution as the reason for life on earth; creationism has as well, but it lacks clear-cut facts. Evolution and creationism are both ideas, but they cannot both be backed by evidence to support them.
ReplyDeleteI found this debate to be very interesting, even though I wasn't sure which idea I fully believed in at the beginning. After watching the first thirty minutes or so, I found myself in agreement with Ham. Knowing that he would receive criticism for his beliefs, I liked how Ham showed videos of successful scientists to support his argument that creationists are scientists too. One point that Ham made that I thought was very interesting was that creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. It's interesting that two different ideas can come from the same evidence. It all depends on how we interpret the evidence, and what our other beliefs are. While Ken Ham had various examples to support creationism in his presentation, it seemed that Bill Nye only had a few. I only watched a few minutes of Nye's presentation, but in those minutes, the only examples he used were the Grand Canyon and the flood. All that I took away from the short time I watched his presentation was that fossils in the Grand Canyon show evidence of evolution. Bases on Ham's argument, I think that creation is a viable model of origins.
ReplyDeleteAlthough overall I agree that the idea of evolution overpowers that of creationism, I do think Ken Ham made some strong arguments throughout the debate. One in particular was when he stated that biology textbooks are forcing the idea of naturalism on students instead of promoting religious freedom. I do agree with Ham that the textbooks don't allow kids to decide what they want to believe in, creationism or evolution. To resolve this issue, schools could have a religion class that states the very basics of creationism which would allow kids to form their own opinions on the topic. This way, the idea of evolution won't be forced on kids. Kids will also be able to learn about both sides of the story and decide which side has the best evidence and the strongest argument.
ReplyDeleteI found Bill Nye's comments about Noah's ark (around 70 minutes in) interesting and good evidence against the creationist viewpoint. Instead of retreading the same points in the context of the ark, he first points out the holes in the idea that such a wooden ship could be built by unskilled workers to hold 14,000 animals and survive a flood. As in many of his other arguments, Nye holds the advantage in his ability to backup his points, in this case using the example of the Wyoming, a wooden ship smaller than the ark built by expert builders, but unable to sail without bending and sustaining critical leaks. On top of that, he questions how so great a number of animals could be stored and fed with a crew of only 14 people. He builds on each of his points, up to the question of how 7,000 species could yield the majority of the animals that walk the earth today. Both men handled the criticisms graciously, but when it comes down to who could best validate their arguments, Bill Nye had the upper hand.
ReplyDeleteHam's arguments continually appeared to be forced, even considering the lack of concrete evidence for creationism, he still appeared to be outmatched by Nye. I my opinion, Ham did not win my already biased support toward creationism, having said that, Bill Nye won in convincing fashion. I would like to agree with Jacobs comments that an argument for creationism is more defending it, as opposed to attacking the believers of evolution as the evidence today is very conclusive. I would disagree that God has to be manipulated in order to fit into the confounds of the here and now, I believe that the two forces work based on the work of the other, and that there can still be a place for god even in a world where evolution occurs. Is it at the hands of God, probably not, but it doesn't necessarily negate him from the picture either. All told, Nye argued successfully for a side with considerably more evidence, and even dismantled Noah's ark in the process.
ReplyDelete