Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Nye vs. Ham...

So first of all, hats off to both parties. Both are men I respect very much, albeit for different reasons. Nye is a great man of science who is passionate about his work, as well as making sure that young people develop an interest in science, so that we as a society can continue to progress. Kudos to him! Also, it's really hard to explain science in ways that average people understand, so again, kudos to him.

Much respect to Ham as well. He is unashamedly open about his faith, and that takes real guts. We saw the sort of reactions that often accompany such staunch devotion to what you believe. I hope that, should the roles be reversed, Ham would not resort to mockery and belittling (although Christians historically have stooped to that.).

Now, I'm not going to come out swinging on who was right or wrong or any of that. I'm a Christian and I  believe that the Bible is the source of all ultimate truth. That's not to say I hold the same unwavering viewpoints as Ham (though many of them I do), but rather that I base my beliefs on what I read in scripture AND what I observe in the world around me (*gasp* the two aren't incompatible?!?)

No, my review is from a communications point of view. Who was the better communicator in the debate?

So, seeing as he went first in the debate, I'll start with Ken Ham.

Well, if his goal was to come across as unflinching and unwavering in his devotions, he succeeded. He seemed to have 3 to 5 target points that hey hit... and hit... and hit some more... and hit again... once more for good measure... and once more for being mean to his mother. Ham drilled his talking points, to the point where I, as someone who agrees with him, got tired of it.

This is a problem on two fronts. Firstly, it tires the audience. If the audience knows what you're likely to say, you've lost them. You need to hold their attention by presenting new information or hinting at things you may pull out of your hat later. An excellent place he could have done this was with his list of alternative dating methods. He displays a list of maybe 50 or so alternatives, but never... discusses... any... of them. He could have mined that vein for all it was worth. Every time the dating issue cam up, he could have used 2 or 3 completely different methods as references, but he didn't.

Secondly, it becomes really REALLY hurts your credibility (ethos). If the audience feels like they've heard all you have to say 10 minutes into your 30 minute presentation, you lose a LOT of credibility. The audience no longer sees you as someone they can learn from. If they know what you're going to say before you say it, they see you as, at best, an equal, and at worst, a simple person. Even really brilliant people can fall into this. The saying "familiarity brings contempt" applies to public speaking as well; if your audience is too familiar, you lose them faster because they can guess where you're going.

Something he did very well on was the Q&A time. He did many things right, but two were really excellent. His, "well, Bill, there's a book that talks about [x]" quip was awesome. It was one part cheeky and 3 parts arguement. On the one hand it's a humorous thing, which Nye sort of had cornered the rest of the debate. Get the audience to laugh, and they listen to you a little more readily. Secondly, though, it really sold his "look, I have an answer" point. He didn't have to ramble and explain and maneuver. He simply had to point to a verse and cite it. Now, Nye can debate credibility of scripture all he wants, but from the basic speaking point of view, referring to your primary citation is a great move.

Now for Bill. Nye:

Though he did well initially, he gave in eventually to the temptation to belittle. A good example is his insinuating that Ham believes Noah had superpowers. Ham never said that, or anything like it. Nye decided to try to make it look ridiculous, which is a perfectly fair tactic in debate, but you have to pull it off in a way that makes your opponent's point look ridiculous while presenting yourself as reasonable and logical. Nye went a little to far with his jab, and ended up looking kinda mean or silly.

One thing Nye did very well was pathos, or emotion. He made the audience laugh, he tugged the "think of the children" string many times, and he repeatedly played the "reasonable man" card, which worked very well for making him look moderate (when in reality he's not). The audience was much more in tune with him than with Ham, because he had better pathos appeal. Now, that being said, you can't win a debate with ionly pathos appeal.

So, from a communications point of view, who won?

Well, first, kudos to Ham for his definition of terms tactic. In classical debate, that nets him huge points, especially because Nye never really addressed it. In classical debate, that means Ham's definitions stand as what we judge by, which puts many of Nye's arguments on shaky ground.

That said, Nye won. Like, by a lot.

The question of the debate was "Is six-day, 6000-year-old-earth creationism a valid explanation of origins in today's scientific climate?"

To which Ken ham said:

"We need to define terms because the terms have been hijacked and we're being brainwashed and manipulated to believe evolution because textbooks misuse words. Naturalists are filling our kids heads with their beliefs and trying to inhibit ours. Christians are scientists too! Here's a lot of them! See! They can talk about their discoveries! Oh, and inventions! Christians can invent too! And carbon dating is wrong and doesn't prove anything. Oh, and Answers in Genesis is great and wonderful and awesome. Thank you."

Bill Nye on the other hand provided piece after piece of evidence that (in his mind) disprove creationism. He presented evidence, discussed it, and moved on to more evidence. It was great! I actually learned a bit from his presentation, and saw some new pieces to consider how to address in my own theology; questions I hadn't heard asked before.

Eventually, when he was really tacked down on some of the issues, Ham started to talk about actual physical evidence, but it was at best 15 or 20 percent of his debate. Considering the question of the debate, he should have come out swinging REALLY hard on the evidence front (and there is lots of evidence!).

So yeah, that's my opinion, take it as you will. Again, lots of respect to both of them. It was a good debate and, as a communications student, quite a neat chance to see in action the things I've talked about.