ICR article image.
Posted on 02/07/2014 9:24:26 AM PST by fishtank
Nye vs. Ham Debate: No True Scotsman by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A surprisingly large number of people—some three million—watched live online February 4 as debaters discussed the topic “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ken Ham took the affirmative position while “Science Guy” Bill Nye took the negative. During the debate, Nye’s use of a certain fallacy was soon evident, and viewers should beware of this tactic because of the subtle way it can skew perception.
Each time Nye contrasted “Ken Ham’s creation model” of a young world with “us in the scientific community,” he committed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle wrote in Discerning Truth that this fallacy is committed “when an arguer defines a term in a biased way to protect his argument from rebuttals.”1
The informal fallacy’s name comes from an imaginary conversation in which a Scotsman claims that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. A bystander replies that he, too, is from Scotland but does put sugar on his porridge. The first Scotsman rejoins, “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
What did he do? He essentially redefined the word Scotsman to insulate his argument against virtually any example that refutes it.
The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists—by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.
The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes. But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.
Nye was wrong to assume that no real scientist could ever hold the creation model, since scores of real scientists have and do. This is amply demonstrated in books like In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation and The Genesis Files, containing 22 interviews with Ph.D. scientists who ascribe to Ham’s creation model and tell their stories.2,3 And of course, early creation scientists forged the paths of each of today’s major scientific branches of inquiry, like Isaac Newton’s physics,4 Matthew Maury’s oceanography, Louis Pasteur’s immunology,5 Michael Faraday’s electromagnetism,6 and George Carver’s agriculture.7,8 Are we to believe that Newton and Pasteur were not real scientists?
Apparently, facts like these do not matter to someone who is so fully committed to the false idea that real scientists only believe in evolution that he is more than willing to adjust the very definition of scientist to preserve his argument.
The fictional Scotsman who actually does put sugar on his porridge was willing to present and perhaps even demonstrate his case. In the same way, a minority of true scientists are willing and prepared to make their cases for biblical and scientific creation. Why would anyone even feel the need to protect their anti-creation definition of scientist with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy unless the evidence for recent creation that believing scientists are prepared to present constitutes a real threat?
References
Lisle, J. 2010. Discerning Truth. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 134. Ashton, J., ed. 2001. In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. Wieland, C., ed. 2004. The Genesis Files. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton. Acts & Facts. 37 (5): 8. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Louis Pasteur. Acts & Facts. 37 (11): 8. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Michael Faraday. Acts & Facts. 37 (8): 8. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: George Washington Carver. Act & Facts. 37 (12): 8. Morris, H. 1982. Men of Science, Men of God. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on February 7, 2014.
ICR article image.
Bill DeNye, the make it up as you go guy.
I used to like Nye. Now I think he is a piece of shite!
I used to like Nye. Now I think he is a piece of shite!
I don’t buy into the earth is only 6000 years old stuff, but i do believe everything was created. If it changes over time to something else, then it was supposed to do that all along.
It would have been an interesting debate to watch....
I watched him with my kids when they were little. I wouldn’t now.
The informal fallacy’s name comes from an imaginary conversation in which a Scotsman claims that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. A bystander replies that he, too, is from Scotland but does put sugar on his porridge. The first Scotsman rejoins, “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.” What did he do? He essentially redefined the word Scotsman to insulate his argument against virtually any example that refutes it.
PFL
Bill Nye warns that population growth is driving global warming
Sorry, but Bill Nye is the modern “Mr Wizrd”. I liked him on Almost Live back in the nineties. He was good with the “gee wiz” fun with science stuff. I never took him seriously, though. I still don’t.
Nice bow tie, though.
As lame as Nye was, it sounds like Ham was worse. They are skewering and mocking him on the liberal site I post at. Apparently he actually appealed to the bible a lot. The bible is not a science book. It touches on it and that is it.
Creationism is not a “Christian” thing. It is a Creationism science thing that is compatible with the Word of God.
Very disappointed in Ham.
And a simple refutation is “Well, does ‘us in the scientific community’ include [insert scientists that are creationists here]”. And then call him on appealing to some non-comprehensive consensus. The scientific community includes folks from both sides of the issue, so the comment is meaningless and is an attempt to poison the well. That should be said during the debate.
If I presented specific examples of full credentialed scientists who believe Bush was responsible for 9/11, does that make it true?
Ham WAS worse. His intellectual dishonesty, equivocation, and use of lame syllogisms and absurd logical leaps, as well as his use of a truly mind-boggiling redefinition of the word “science” into something unrecognizable, forced me to turn the whole thing off no more than 15 minutes in. It was too embarrassing to bear.
I agree. The argument is intelligent design vs. random accident. You have to get a person to first agree that there is a creator before you can reference the creator’s word. Citing the Bible is not persuasive to an atheist.
No. Also doesn’t make evolution or global warming true.
Then the comment that a number of scientists support creationism is also irrelevant? And it would be interesting to find out how many of those scientists support the young Earth creationism of Ham and his adherents?
Don’t take personally, just using the occasion of your post to pontificate.
I don’t know exactly how old earth is, but I have looked into it and there is undeniable truth that the millions of years old is very doubtful.
The problem is that it has been pounded into everyone’s head that “science” says so , it must be true. Look at their flawed evidence. Everyone must investigate/research EVERYTHING. Things that you are absolutely “true” are NOT.
Do you trust teachers? Why, they are (mostly) all liberals.
Do you trust professors? Why, they are (mostly) all liberals.
Do you trust scientists? Why, they are (mostly) all liberals.
Do you trust the news media? Why, they are (mostly) all liberals.
Do you trust politicians? Why, they are (mostly) all liars.
Do you trust your friends and or co-workers? Why, they are (mostly) all ignorant (uninformed or misinformed) and half of them are liberals.
Do you trust your relatives? Why, they are (mostly) all ignorant (uninformed or misinformed) and half of them are liberals.
Do you trust your clergy? Why, they are (mostly) all terrified of the government taking away their tax exemption and half of them are liberals.
Do you trust yourself? Why, are you as informed on all topics as you could be? Is your family still cutting the ends off your meatloaf just like grandma and great grandma always did? And now your just finding out it was because great grandma just didn’t have a big enough pan, not a part of the recipe?
Do you remember being taught in school that photosynthesis was necessary for life in that nothing could exist without the sun. That is until undersea exploration in the deep ocean, discovered life near volcanic vents, where no sunlight can penetrate.
QUESTION EVERYTHING. VERIFY even your core beliefs. If they are true, they will be verified.
it’s still on youtube, i think....
brilliant.
thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.