Dear Astute readers.Firstly I
address that although the title of this post conveys a hostile atmosphere it is
further from the truth. In all honesty it is a marketing ploy which most
bloggers use to get that much needed ego-boosting traffic.
Before starting to write I
contemplated whether relating my opinion in a vastly religious world would be
the best thing to do. But then I thought more on the subject and realised only
God can judge me so I went ahead. This article could be considered ideologically
sensitive I suppose, so be warned. I’m also bad with disclaimers.
In case you didn't know the
debate was between Bill Nye (Educator, Engineer, Scientist and TV icon) and Ken
Ham (Young Earth creationist and Evangelist).
 |
| Science Guy Bill Nye (Left) and Creation Bloke Ken Ham (Right) Expressions Say It All. |
The subject matter discussed revolved around the main topics of the creationist tree of evolution as opposed to everything originating from a single organism ,the validity of the events stated in the bible, the age of the earth and methods of proving this among many other things, but most importantly what affect this should have on the education system.
I will attempt to briefly summarise how I feel the debate proceeded.
The Main focus of Young
earth creationists is the age of our world. They believe the earth to be 6000
years old based on a book written, rewritten, passed down and translated
through the ages. Whereas in mainstream science, experiments have been done to
determine the age of the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion years old.
Let us look at fact and logic. Although I would love to travel back in time unfortunately I cannot so the only proof I have that the earth is 6000 years old is a single book written by a man. But what I can do is travel to Australia (incidentally and ironically where Mr. Ken Ham is from). I will journey to Western Australia, specifically Jack Hills where I can find zircon crystals and perform a radiometric age dating experiments to find that they are at least 4.404 billion years old.
Ken Ham states that radiometric dating is fallible but I would assume that scientists would have moved on to better age dating methods or use none at all if they were faulted instead of continuing to use them in self delusion.
He uses an example for which he did not present actual proof that a thousand year wood fragment was found encased in million year rock. His argument is: How can the ages differ? The answer might be tectonic plate movements, where rock layers could have slid over and under the wood fragments and over time encapsulating it between them.
Fundamentally the age of the planet being so young begs the question of how rates of nature were so incredibly rapid in the past and why they have slowed down in the present day and age. For example the tectonic plate movements. As such I believe this to be a flawed hypothesis.
Moving on to the creationist tree of evolution. Ken Ham eloquently puts that instead of a single organism from which all animals originate, that all animals stem from different "kinds" of animals. The term "kind" he says refers to, I believe, sub classes or families. Therefore meaning that according to creationism the classification of order, class, phylum and even kingdom are perhaps moot. Now I don't know much about taxonomy but I believe that they have determined the classifications of order, class, phylum and kingdom through molecular genetic research and experimentation.
For example humans are in the primate order meaning we share incredibly similar genetic compositions with other primates so it is likely that at some point we all descended from a single organism. Going even further into the class of mammalia new relationships have been found linking the different families of mammals. This contradicts the creationist tree of evolution.
Furthermore as Bill Nye says if indeed we were to imagine a young world, given the number of species that exist today:
A) The evolution process would have to be remarkably fast.
B) Dozens of Species would have to be found everyday
Let us look at fact and logic. Although I would love to travel back in time unfortunately I cannot so the only proof I have that the earth is 6000 years old is a single book written by a man. But what I can do is travel to Australia (incidentally and ironically where Mr. Ken Ham is from). I will journey to Western Australia, specifically Jack Hills where I can find zircon crystals and perform a radiometric age dating experiments to find that they are at least 4.404 billion years old.
Ken Ham states that radiometric dating is fallible but I would assume that scientists would have moved on to better age dating methods or use none at all if they were faulted instead of continuing to use them in self delusion.
He uses an example for which he did not present actual proof that a thousand year wood fragment was found encased in million year rock. His argument is: How can the ages differ? The answer might be tectonic plate movements, where rock layers could have slid over and under the wood fragments and over time encapsulating it between them.
Fundamentally the age of the planet being so young begs the question of how rates of nature were so incredibly rapid in the past and why they have slowed down in the present day and age. For example the tectonic plate movements. As such I believe this to be a flawed hypothesis.
Moving on to the creationist tree of evolution. Ken Ham eloquently puts that instead of a single organism from which all animals originate, that all animals stem from different "kinds" of animals. The term "kind" he says refers to, I believe, sub classes or families. Therefore meaning that according to creationism the classification of order, class, phylum and even kingdom are perhaps moot. Now I don't know much about taxonomy but I believe that they have determined the classifications of order, class, phylum and kingdom through molecular genetic research and experimentation.
For example humans are in the primate order meaning we share incredibly similar genetic compositions with other primates so it is likely that at some point we all descended from a single organism. Going even further into the class of mammalia new relationships have been found linking the different families of mammals. This contradicts the creationist tree of evolution.
Furthermore as Bill Nye says if indeed we were to imagine a young world, given the number of species that exist today:
A) The evolution process would have to be remarkably fast.
B) Dozens of Species would have to be found everyday
Sadly neither is the case in
the present day. However what is fascinating is that this theory closely
resembles a much loved kids cartoon.
In conclusion I fear that
Science has triumphed purely due to the lack of evidence and flawed theories
presented by the Creationist party and therefore conventional science MUST
remain to be in use public schools.
All in all the debate is incredibly entertaining and educative and I advise you
to watch it.
Finally I remind you that religion,
although having faults, is and has played a key role in giving hope, a sense of
community and inspiring people. It is through patience respect and restraint that
we will attain peace and enlightenment.
On the other hand bombard me with your comments, questions and corrections.Rebuttle I shall.
Cheers
On the other hand bombard me with your comments, questions and corrections.Rebuttle I shall.
Cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment