Assumptions Based on Experience
Both Bill Nye and Ken Ham started with the same observations. The debate wasn’t about the observations. The debate was about the best starting point for interpreting the observations. Bill Nye has a starting point for thinking based on assumptions. Ken Ham uses the Bible through which God reveals Himself and the history of the world.
The central question of the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate is clear.
The Central Question: What’s the real basis for thought?
Thought always has a foundation, but sometimes that foundation is untrustworthy. Bill claimed that arbitrary assumptions are a good foundation. He had a clever rationalization for this. Ken Ham insisted that revelation from God is a good foundation. The two …show more content…
Both observation and assumption have become part of a package deal. That’s why he says there’s no difference between observational science and historical science.
Consider Bill’s phrase “make assumptions based on radiometric dating.” The term “radiometric dating” implies an accurate way of measuring dates. You can’t observe the age of the earth. All dating methods interpret observations based on assumptions. Dating methods usually confuse assumptions with reality. It’s rare for a scientist to admit that the calculated dates have no more validity than made-up stuff. By refusing to admit this, the scientists confuse assumptions with reality. They tend to speak of billions of years dogmatically. They rarely acknowledge that their claims are based on made-up stuff.
Bill’s phrase is about assumptions. And those assumptions are based on conclusions that are based on other assumptions. Assumption-based thinking is a house of cards. Yet students are taught to be dogmatic about assumption-based thinking. Students are taught to be dogmatic about things like “billions of years.” They know they’re right because they’ve been taught to be dogmatic. They’ve been taught to avoid thinking rationally. They question truth, but they won’t question
Both Bill Nye and Ken Ham started with the same observations. The debate wasn’t about the observations. The debate was about the best starting point for interpreting the observations. Bill Nye has a starting point for thinking based on assumptions. Ken Ham uses the Bible through which God reveals Himself and the history of the world.
The central question of the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate is clear.
The Central Question: What’s the real basis for thought?
Thought always has a foundation, but sometimes that foundation is untrustworthy. Bill claimed that arbitrary assumptions are a good foundation. He had a clever rationalization for this. Ken Ham insisted that revelation from God is a good foundation. The two …show more content…
Both observation and assumption have become part of a package deal. That’s why he says there’s no difference between observational science and historical science.
Consider Bill’s phrase “make assumptions based on radiometric dating.” The term “radiometric dating” implies an accurate way of measuring dates. You can’t observe the age of the earth. All dating methods interpret observations based on assumptions. Dating methods usually confuse assumptions with reality. It’s rare for a scientist to admit that the calculated dates have no more validity than made-up stuff. By refusing to admit this, the scientists confuse assumptions with reality. They tend to speak of billions of years dogmatically. They rarely acknowledge that their claims are based on made-up stuff.
Bill’s phrase is about assumptions. And those assumptions are based on conclusions that are based on other assumptions. Assumption-based thinking is a house of cards. Yet students are taught to be dogmatic about assumption-based thinking. Students are taught to be dogmatic about things like “billions of years.” They know they’re right because they’ve been taught to be dogmatic. They’ve been taught to avoid thinking rationally. They question truth, but they won’t question