Here I continue my thoughts on the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on Feb 4 2014 at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. In this video I'll begin to address some of Ken Ham's comments.
It's interesting to note that in both formal and informal debates on this and related topics, the superstitionists often engage in outrageous projection. They accuse the asuperstitionists of making unsupportable assumptions, being inconsistent, being biased, and employing unethical debating techniques, all the while doing exactly those things themselves. I'm beginning to think that in fact superstitionists – at least the real ones – are not being hypocritical, but instead are exhibiting unavoidable symptoms of extreme cognitive dissonance. Note that I say real superstitionists – Ken Ham and his co-charlatans such as Dembski, Comfort, and Craig don't believe a single word of what they're saying – they use projection as a debating tactic, not to mention a tactic for confusing their audience in order to fleece them.
Let's consider some examples of Ken Ham using this tactic.
“I believe it's all a part of secularists hijacking the word science...not only has the word science been hijacked by secularists...the word evolution has been hijacked using a bait-and-switch...the hijacking of the word science and the hijacking of the word evolution in a bait-and-switch.”
What was this entire event if not a bait-and-switch? The debate topic, posted on the Answers In Genesis website and articulated multiple times by both debaters, was “Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?” Ken Ham had the floor for a total of one hour and eight minutes. After 25 minutes or so of nonsense, he finally began to discuss his creation “model” by producing a list of six so-called predictions “based on the bible”. He talked about two of the six for a grand total of three minutes. The topic was the bait, and the remaining hour and five minutes of Ham's address was the switch.
As an aside, I actually laughed out loud when he concluded his three-minute mini-speech with this comment: “There's much more that could be said on each of these topics. Obviously you can't do that in a short time like this.”
Returning to the projection tactic, note Ham's emphasis on the hijacking of words, while he has completely hijacked the term historical science. He claims that it simply refers to knowledge about the past, which, although grossly oversimplified, is a sort-of-ok description. But it becomes clear over the course of the debate that he doesn't really mean “knowledge about the past”. What he really means is that he starts with his interpretation of the allegedly historical account of creation in Genesis, fabricates some vague predictions based on his interpretation, and then twists present-day observations to allegedly confirm the predictions. This is not historical science. It is not science.
Ham takes great pains to point out that superstitionists can practice legitimate science. He's right, of course. In fact, Ham himself engaged in excellent science when, based on solid, present-day observations, he predicted that the Creation Museum would be an excellent source of income.
That's 11.6. Thanks for watching.