The debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, evolution vs creationism, is being streamed tonight on www.debatelive.org from 7-9:30 ET. Or you could see it on
https://plus.google.com/... . Apparently on this latter site some questions will be collected from the internet audience. But it is not yet evident on that site where to submit a question.
The livestreaming is being hosted by Answers in Genesis and little creationist propaganda videos are also presented for viewing. The audience is probably all creationists.
There has been a lot of opining on the part of evolutionists on whether the debate should be taking place at all because it gives too legitimate a platform for creationist views, the idea that there is any real debate in scientific circles (which there is not). There has also been a lot of advice generated for Bill Nye. Knowing that debate is won by the most skilled debater, not necessarily by the one with the truth, I am nervous about it and full of caution and advice. I'll state some of my thoughts. What are yours?
1. Ken Ham falsely divides science into operational and historical science. Operational science is where you do experiments in the here and now. His "historical science" is the group of sciences that deals all of the natural history of the earth, geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, etc. He writes them all off with the assertion that since no one was there to witness the changes that any conclusions that are made can only be conjecture and speculation. And since there is an eyewitness in the Bible, namely God, then that can be the only authority. So I hope Nye attacks this false dichotomy with concrete examples understandable examples accessible to very simple minded people.
For example, I think of a 500 year old tree in the middle of a forest. We have learned that we can tell the age of a tree by counting the annual rings. So if we count 500 rings does that not mean the tree is 500 years old, even though no one was there to witness the age of the tree the whole time? So with the "rings" in the crust of the earth.
They argue that radiodating is uncertain because the decay rate could have been different in the past. But modern scientists have put decaying elements through all kinds of stresses, and nothing has caused them to change their decay rate. As Dawkins says, these are different clocks, all indicating the same time.
2. I hope he brings up the comparison of genomes of animals and their mutation rates. This is a splendid modern day witness to the past.
I have much more to say but I have to go to work.