Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The Evolving Logic of Bill Nye

I like Bill Nye.  We have watched his “Science Guy” videos for years and have learned much from them.  Who doesn’t love the hardboiled egg analogy or the “Blood Steam” song.  Recently, Nye made a video for "Big Think" called “Mama, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Deny Evolution.” http://bigthink.com/users/bill-nye.  Many have commented on the content.  For example, Dr. David Menton, PhD Biology, Brown University, and Dr. Gerogie Perdom PhD Molecular Genetics, Ohio State University from “Creation Museum” produced a video answering some of the claims in the Nye video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA).  Again, I like Bill Nye and I don’t mind if he disagrees with me or anyone, but I was saddened to see how well he presented such uncritical arguments.  I think he can do much better.

I am not a scientist so I will not address the science content of Nye’s video, however, I would like to support my claim that his arguments were less than critical with the following examples.

Bill Nye says that when people claim to not believe in evolution, his response is the following.

“Why not?  Your world becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution.  I mean here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils.  Here is radioactivity.  Here are distant stars that are just like our star but are at a different point in their life cycle.  The idea of deep time.  The idea of billions of years explains so much of the world around us.  If you try to ignore that, your worldview just becomes crazy untenable…itself inconsistent.”

He says this beautifully. He says it with confidence and authority.  However, as pretty as it is, this response is a combination of at least two fallacies.  The first is a fallacy of simple ambiguity.  Mr. Nye seems to have a very narrow view of what it means to not believe in evolution.  His comments seem directed specifically toward young earth creationists.  He offers four arguments against “creationism” and each argument is connected with time – “dinosaur bones or fossils…radioactivity…distant stars and deep time.”  There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with young earth creationists or attempting to refute their beliefs.    However, the term “Creationism” does not necessarily mean “Young Earth Creationism”. It includes that view, but the position is actually much more complicated.  A man of Bill Nye’s education and confident voice should know that before speaking authoritatively on the topic. 

The second fallacy is the fallacy of composition.  This fallacy assumes that what is true or untrue of the parts must necessarily be true or untrue of the whole.  In this case Mr. Nye assumes that if he can counter young earth creationism (the success of his arguments is questionable), then he has countered all creationist views.  On the surface, this is clearly not the case.  The creationist worldview is simply more complicated than Nye assumes.  The mistake here is that he seems unaware that there is more than one species of creationist.  There are at least two other genus.  There is “Old Earth Creationism”, sometimes called “Progressive Creationism”.  There is “Fully Gifted Creationism”, sometimes called “Theistic Evolution”.  Within these worldviews there are also more nuances.  My point is that by attempting to refute young creationism, many aspects of old earth creationism or theistic evolution are not even touched.  Then having used a couple of pithy statements to not fully address the issue at hand, Nye dresses this poor logic up in a serious, confident face and authoritative voice, claims victory and goes on to advise parents not to make their children believe in the views he has not refuted.  As a scientist and teacher he should, and I am sure he does, know that arguments are more complex than he presented them and often need many qualifiers.

At the end of his video Bill Nye advised parents not to make their children believe in creationism, “…because we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers.  We need engineers that can build stuff (Minor point:  Engineers do not build stuff, they design stuff.)  and solve problems.”  This is simply a non sequitur – it doesn’t follow.  His argument assumes that belief in divine creation precludes critical thinking, literacy and the ability to do engineering.  This is clearly not the case.  To refute an argument like this, only a single counter example needs to be presented.  I am sure there are many but I can offer the first hand example of myself.  I am currently a missionary in Odessa.  However, for eleven years I worked as a computer draftsmen and then an engineer.  As an engineer I was paid well for my designs.  Most everything I designed was built and served its purpose or is still standing today.  The kicker is that I am currently a creationist and I was a creationist while I was an engineer.  I also have been and currently am an active voter.  I may not agree with Mr. Nye’s politics, but I read the positions of the candidates (I am literate), read the propositions, listen to the debates and make the best choice I can.  Finally, I am sure that the government is more than happy to take tax money from literate, illiterate, creationists and evolutionists alike.  If illiteracy was an excuse for not paying taxes, I am sure that many of our most financially successful people would suddenly lose the ability to read.

As I watched the video, it was obvious that it is well shot, edited and nicely produced.  It is clear that some thought and work went into it.  I don’t know if Nye’s thoughts were scripted or he just thought, spoke on the topic and then edited it together later.  Either way, there was some thought and work put into this production.  If this were an impromptu interview, we could almost excuse Nye’s poor logic, but it is clear that some preparation was put into the production of this video.  A man of Nye’s education and experience should know better than to not do his homework when speaking as an authority.  He was speaking against a worldview without really understanding the complexities of the world view.  When I took debate in college (yep went to college), my professor said that the first rule of debate is “know your opponents position.”  Nye does not understand the complexity of his opponent’s position.  This much is clear.

In conclusion, I would like to use some of Mr. Nye’s last argument as a counter argument.  In the end I agree that in the US we need literate voters, tax payers and good engineers.  However, in my view, these qualities are more connected with the ability to think critically than with a belief in creationism or evolution.  I would charge parents to teach their children to think critically and reason well in opposition to the way Nye reasons in his video.  This is not an attack on Bill Nye.  I did not say that he cannot reason well and think critically – actually I am convinced that he can.  What I am saying is that he did not reason well in this video.  This is too bad, because if a man of Nye’s intellect and knowledge were indeed to look into the claims and arguments of the various families of creationists, I think he would find a rich milieu for debate and lively intellectual interaction.

(Rebuttal warning:  If you say, “Nye is a scientist, not an expert on the Bible or religion or creationism or philosophy or logic.”  My response will be something like, “If that is so, then why does he feel the freedom to speak authoritatively on the topic.  This is not a false dilemma.  Either he did not do his homework or is speaking as an expert where he has no expertise or he is ignorant of his lack of expertise.  In any of these circumstances, he should not be giving advice to parents.”)

Sunday, September 2, 2012

When You Disagree with the People’s Translation – Part III of III

Old Church Slavonic (18th Century)
Now that I have convinced myself which text is original, I see a more daunting task before me.  If I am to teach this in a Russian or Ukrainian context, how do I teach the text without undermining the authority of the people’s Bible?  If I simply tell them to trust me, I am undermining the authority of their Bible and making myself their authority.  I don’t want to do that.  If I try to explain how I came to this conclusion, I will lose most of them and bore the rest to death.  So how do I teach/preach what I am convinced is the original text and at the same time support the authority of the people’s Bible?

Here are some suggestions.  The following suggestions are given under the assumption that the teacher/preacher prayerfully and humbly prepares his messages with a desire to communicate God’s truth in a way that will bring glory to God and transform the hearts, minds and lives of his listeners.  A high standard I know, but the calling to teach/preach God’s truth should, in my view, always be approached with awe, fear and trembling.

First, do your homework.  To the extent that God has given you the ability, study the issue.  This is also an opportunity to perhaps increase and improve the exegetical skills God has allowed you to develop. 

Second, study the issue from different points of view.  One way to do that is to read people you don’t agree with and even learn their position well enough to defend it.  One professor used to say, “You are not ready to debate an opponent until you can skillfully defend your opponent’s position.” 

Third, be able to explain your view in terms that the non-seminarian can understand.  This is not easy.  Not everything can be explained in simple terms.  This will take time and may require a willingness to further educate those who ask.  You should think this through as part of your message preparation.  You should be prepared to define terms and point people to resources for further personal study.
Fourth, consider your audience, your verbal genre and your explanation.  For example, if your preparing a sermon that includes Romans 8:1, you are going to have to say something about the textual issue.  If your audience is a small congregation of elderly people living in a village in rural Ukraine, it is probably a bad idea to go into a lot of detail about the study of textual criticism.  However, it may be helpful to say a few words about the nature of translations.  There is sometimes disagreement on how to translate certain Greek or Hebrew terms.  Always humbly affirm that there are good reasons for the decision that the translators of the Russian Bible (for example) made and while you respect their scholarship, on this one point you don’t agree.  Explain your conclusion and then offer to explain further after the service if someone has more in depth questions.  I think this is enough.  It affirms the usefulness of the people’s Bible while at the same time reminding them that it is a translation and in all translation something is lost.  It also indicates the humble possibility that you could be wrong (and it’s true, you could be wrong) and the translation could be correct.  On the other hand, if you have an audience of seminary students and staff, it may be useful to spend a little time on the textual issue and show how the discipline can be used in the exegetical process.  I think it is a good idea to try to include, on some level hermeneutical and/or exegetical principles – directly or indirectly in every sermon.  It may also serve as an opportunity to stretch and inspire your hearers to further study.

Finally, consider your time constraints.  The textual issue is important, but you don’t want it to obscure the more important truth that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.  Remember, if some have questions, there is always time to have a mini seminar or informal discussion group after the sermon.

It is my sincere hope and desire that these musings help some better study, understand and communicate the Word of God.