Ken Ham on Bill Nye

I recently came across a post on facebook which linked to the following article:

I couldn’t help but comment on this post as there are many things wrong in this article. Unfortunately, the post was removed after my comment was posted. I decided to post my comment here for those interested in what I had to say:

Unfortunately, this article mainly elaborates on how much Ken Ham does not understand evolution. There is a good reason why the term “the selfish gene” was coined. It is not the individuals, necessarily, that are selfish, but the genes. The “survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean the “survival of the strongest”. Rather, it means “survival of the fittest GENES”. A “fit gene” depends on the context. A gene may be “fit” in one context and “unfit” in another.

What’s the “Best Way to Live?” – who defines the best way? The problem with Ken’s question is that it assumes a “who”. Who says there is a who? (Haha, couldn’t help myself there!) As Nye explained in the video, nature, from evolution, defines what is the best way. Nye does have basis to claim “the best way” that he does. We have done studies and know how humans behave, how they liked to be treated, and how they treat others. Nye was explaining that we are social creatures. This golden rule is something that has been around for an extremely long time. At least in the thousands of years in nature (if not millions or even billions – depending on how you look at it). By simple observation, we can deduce this rule. It’s a rather simple deduction to make really.

Ken Ham seems to think only the physically strong survive. If Ken Ham wants people to take him seriously, he needs to at least understand what he’s talking about. As I explained above, the genes are what matter. In a group of social creatures, anyone that is a “jerk” is NOT FIT. A selfish individual is often removed from these types of groups. Alone, they are more vulnerable and hence less likely to survive. To be “fit” you have to “fit in”. And what a group will or will not accept depends on how they are. (Again, from evolution.) So what Nye was saying is essentially, our ethics works for us, because our ethics is about us. This is certainly something that can be studied and objective statements can be made. It’s not hard to understand and do. There’s fields that study the human mind and behavior. Psychology, sociology, etc.

And the last thing to correct: The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Just need some good old physics on this one.