Bill Nye To Debate Creationist Museum Founder Ken Ham 611
New submitter cusco writes "Creation Museum Founder and AiG President/CEO Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye at the Creation Museum on Tuesday, February 4, at 7 PM. According to the Washington Post, 'Ham had been hoping to attract the star of TV's 'Bill Nye The Science Guy' to the northern Kentucky museum after Nye said in an online video last year that teaching creationism was bad for children. The video was viewed nearly 6 million times on YouTube.'"
This should be good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope it is easily view-able online, either live or shortly after. I'd go see it in person except, you know, wrong part of the country and all :)
Re: (Score:2)
I respect Bye a great deal, but I wouldn't cross the room to listen to Ham.
Re:This should be good! (Score:5, Funny)
I respect Bye a great deal, but I wouldn't cross the room to listen to Ham.
I agree. This Ham on Nye thing really doesn't cut the mustard.
Re: (Score:3)
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and then beat you with his experience.
What kind of argument is possible with people like this? His fans will go on believing any stupid shit he tells them, they are not rational, so why trying to convince them using rational arguments? Just leave them be. The problem will fix itself eventually.
Re: This should be good! (Score:3)
I had the "pleasure" of hearing direct from the horse's ass/mouth in 1991, when I attended a Discovery seminar in Jerusalem and in 1992, when he visited the University of Cambridge, where I was studying, to give a talk. He is full of it. Some is ignorance, some is active disinformation, but the common thread is that it's drivel.
He didn't understand natural selection and how it differed from random chance. He was a big fan of the bible codes bollocks, which had my various religious mathematician friends goin
Re:This should be good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Naw... My definition of a good debate is that you have opponents who both have equally insightful arguments. A better debate might be Bill Nye vs Dr. Hugh Ross.
Re:This should be good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say hypothetically, there was a really good argument in favor of creationism that somehow had not come up in the hundred plus years that creationists have been denying science. It's possible that Bill McNye is open-minded enough to accept the possibility that creationism is valid. I doubt I could, but McNye is pretty awesome.
Ham, on the other hand, has undoubtedly been exposed to numerous arguments in favor of evolution that convince virtually everyone who doesn't have a religious bias. And he hasn't been convinced. He's not open to the possibility that his religion is wrong.
It's not going to be a productive debate: one side can't possibly win in the "convince the other side" way. The other side can't win in the sense of "being right."
Re:This should be good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? The point of a proper debate on stage is not to convince the other person. It's to convince the audience. No one believes either Ham or Nye will change their views; that doesn't mean there's no value in an audience hearing their viewpoints and making up their own minds.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the point of a public debate.
Re:This should be good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately this isn't a proper debate. It's a trap. Creationists are experts at this kind of non-debate.
They complain about missing links. You show them a fossil that is the link. Now there are two missing links either side of it. You tell them about fossils they can see in a museum and they will tell you they saw them and were unconvinced, even though everyone else was. You show them vat scientific consensus and they will reel off names of creationists pretending to be scientists and claim you are wrong. Then they usually try to make out you are some kind of extremist and they are the moderate ones.
Basically they rely on presenting a positive image of themselves and FUD. Debating with them just gives them a legitimate platform to work from.
Re: (Score:3)
Religion is based on believing what you are told despite the lack of supporting facts.
I predict that Nye will score huge points in logic and reason that can not be ignored.
I also predict that ham will continue to ignore that and everything else which contradicts his beliefs, even if the freaking pope walks up and slaps him with a live trout while declaring him to be an ignorant boob.
Re:This should be good! (Score:4, Informative)
I think you would find Dr. Ross to be quite open minded and not anti-science. But he is in fact a creationist... He's even debated Ken Ham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget it is easy for idiots to ask questions that the smartest person cannot answer. He will have to be careful of such tactics.
Don't encourage them... (Score:3, Insightful)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, for real, and I used to do intercollegiate debate so from that end I agree it could be interesting...
What gives me pause is that doing these debates just lends credence to the idea that there are two sides to the "creation debate." There is really only one side: SCIENCE.
Anything else should be reserved for religious institutions, religious studies classes, etc.
If Ken Ham or whoever thinks they have scientific proof that the entire earth was flooded in a cataclysm ~3000-4000 bp
Re: (Score:3)
A proper understanding of the bible would allow him to a
Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
If Bill Nye accepted this invitation, it gives the creationists far more exposure than they deserve.
Remember, if you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
The debate isn't about convincing the creationists - it's about convincing anybody on the fence.
It's an unfortunate fact that it's necessary to constantly have fact-based evidence floating out there to counter the enormous amount of irrational nonsense. It's not necessarily the best voice that wins, but often the loudest.
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to be a creationist who was closer to the fence than most, and it was material like this proposed debate that finally lit a bulb in my head and allowed me to cross over.
I listened to an old interview with the late Carl Sagan on Science Friday last week, and one of his bones of contention was the haughtiness of the scientific community in regards to reacting to pseudo science.
Re:Bad call (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately, with science you don't have to believe. Belief is for when you want the same warm fuzzy feeling your parents have about whatever religion is popular in that particular region. Science is for when you want the right answer.
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, with science you don't have to believe. Belief is for when you want the same warm fuzzy feeling your parents have about whatever religion is popular in that particular region.
I'm a big fan of science. If you search through my posts here, you'll find cases where I've defended evolution vehemently.
But I think you're wrong about science for most people. For 99% of people, they don't have sufficient scientific background to evaluate technical claims in science. Quite a few years ago, for example, when the "intelligent design" movement was first making headway, there were a few credentialed scientists who were supporting it and writing books about it, etc. I got a little intrigued and started reading. Some of the arguments sounded interesting -- after all, archaeologists have to deal with issues of "design" all the time -- is that a random rock formed naturally, or is it an arrowhead carved with intention? How do we know for sure that something could have been formed naturally? How do we know our scientific explanations for those causes are correct?
I never really bought into "intelligent design," but I found it hard to refute on its face, assuming you allowed a possibility for an intelligence to "guide" evolution (not necessarily a god, perhaps an alien species, whatever...).
It was only after spending time literally reading thousands of pages of books on evolutionary theory and the stuff from the "intelligent design" crowd that I eventually felt I could actually dismiss the anti-evolution people and their arguments. Today it all seems a little silly to me, but I was younger and still tried to keep an open mind to all perspectives.
Most people don't have that kind of time, nor the technical expertise, to even evaluate the professional literature in a field like evolutionary biology, let alone perform their own experiments. Same thing for issues like climate change, etc.
So, when it comes to evolution, what it boils down to for most people is whether you trust your pastor or minister or priest... or whether you trust your friendly neighborhood scientist. A lot of classic evolution arguments are not about predictive science in the normal sense where you can say, "watch this thing going down an inclined plane, and let's measure what happens..." which instantly proves your point.
Many people strongly feel that their religion also does something meaningful in their lives, regardless of whether they've done a scientific experiment to test it. And then scientists come along and say that what their religious leaders say is false. Most of these people aren't completely dumb -- they recognize that science does good things and reliably makes predictions and gives right answers. But interpreting past events and creating a narrative of evolution is a little more fuzzy for many people.
So, they listen to the arguments on both sides, and they go with what sounds reasonable to them. Unless they have time and knowledge to investigate further, they go with which authority seems strongest to them -- whether that's science or their church or whatever.
In the end, it does come down to "belief" for >90% of people, including even many people educated in science who also don't have the technical background in that specific area.
Science is for when you want the right answer.
What makes it "right" when we're talking about interpretation of past events? If you're building a bridge, you need scientific data on the physics of the bridge design, the strength of the materials, etc. to conclude what is the "right" strategy to make a safe bridge that won't fall down. If people don't follow those principles, the bridges will fail.
But when you're talking about evolutionary theory and events from many millions of years ago, the way to judge whether something is "wrong" is much more nebulous. Obviously you can't have a theory that directly contradicts
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The debate isn't about convincing the creationists - it's about convincing anybody on the fence.
I don't think there are anyone on the fence. The whole creationist idea is so patently ridiculous that no-one believes it.
I think creationists pretend to believe it and defend it so fiercely precisely for two reasons:
1: Because they don't really believe it, and need to convince their pastors and congregation that they do.
2: Because coming out and stating that it's utter bull would be such a major loss of face - it takes less courage to defend a lie to the end than to admit to having lied consistently for
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking that your opponents don't believe what they say they believe is almost always a mistake.
There are millions of creationists who believe, utterly and sincerely, that God created the world and everything in it in six days a few thousand years ago. They believe that the same way you believe in gravity. Of course their beliefs are "patently ridiculous"--it doesn't matter. The belief itself is real, and you underestimate that reality at your peril.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Serious question: Is this a real problem anywhere in the world besides the US and certain Middle Eastern countries?
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure what Islam says about Genesis, but they share the same God.
Not really. When God says "I am" and the muslims say "you are not, you're just a prophet", then clearly they aren't the same.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, no. The "you are not, you're just a prophet" is directed at Jesus, not Yahweh. Islam accepts Jesus as a Prophet (like Mohammed), but denies his divinity.
However, the God is Islam is the same as the God of Christianity and Judaism....
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe there's a "Genesis: Special Edition" staring Jesus in the same way that Hayden Christensen appears as Anakin in Return of the Jedi.
Fact based? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Logic Puzzle (Score:5, Insightful)
If you use the scientific method and break the question down, you end up with this. Does the Universe require something to exist, or can it just happen?
This question does not have anything to do with theology, or evolution, or science because we can not prove the answer. The only thing you can puzzle over is the logical aspects. It's a very interesting and thought provoking question, that tends to be ignored. Atheists will claim "it does not matter because "big bang" and theists will claim "God did it", and neither of those two things answer the question.
That said, if you can determine that the Universe does require something to exist, then theology becomes important. Not because it's true, but because there is really something we can't explain. If you claim "it can just happen" you don't end up in the same with something unexplained, but you basically just made an anti-thesis for everything we know about physics.
As I said, it's a great thinking exercise if nothing else.
But since we can not prove either side correct, it's wrong to claim either side is incorrect. Not only do the theists hate that fact, but atheists do as well.
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll have you know I had to type this almost twice because I fumbled my mouse. :)
So there is video evidence of the big bang happening.
Yes, actually, there is. Tune an old TV to an unused channel. A certain percentage of the static you see is a remnant of the Big Bang: the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Mapping the CMB helped us understand the cosmology of the early universe.
That said, the Big Bang is just the leading hypothesis. In fact, the Big Bang is probably also one of the LEAST interesting (or perhaps most "conservative") of the modern hypotheses out there now.
And also video evidence that god does not exist?
Um... what? Do you have video evidence that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, too? Or perhaps you caught a leprechaun on tape in the act of not existing? Seriously, think that question through for a minute.
What everyone on both sides needs to realize is you literally cannot prove either theory. And when I say literally, I mean literally. It is impossible.
Yes and no. Mostly no.
For starters, a scientific theory is basically just a big hypothesis. A hypothesis is only valid if it is designed to be falisfiable. That is you must be able to design an experiment or collect data that could prove it false. You cannot prove a hypothesis true, because that is not how the scientific method works.
Gravitation is still a theory, by the way. Is gravity impossible to prove? Well, no, because gravity is both an observable fact (objects with mass clearly do "gravitate" toward one another) and a set of hypotheses (various explanations for this phenomenon, some of which are pretty far out there because we're still not sure).
Evolution is the same way. We observe evolution as a fact all around us. Modern biology and medicine are basically entirely about evolution on various scales. Practically everything we eat comes from sources we have manipulated directly through evolution to be more productive or more appealing. New species exist today that would have been "literally" impossible even a few decades ago (bacteria that depend on man-made materials and waste like the famous nylon-eating colonies, for example). In that sense, evolution is an unavoidable fact. The study of it is where the theories come in, but we have pretty much reached consensus on the big picture; now we're just working on the details.
The problem for deniers is that the theory of evolution is "literally" better supported than even the leading theory of gravitation. There is simply overwhelming evidence. If we were wrong about how evolution works, you would be dead right now, many times over, from disease or starvation or worse. Scratch that. You probably would not have been born.
The theory of evolution requires that god does not exist, which cannot be proven. The theory of creationism requires that god does exist, which also cannot be proven.
Let's break this into four parts:
"The theory of evolution requires that god does not exist."
False. The theory of evolution says nothing about any sort of deity. There are many theists (pretty sure the Pope is one) who are quite content to accept both the fact and theory of evolution with their deity being the "agent" responsible. So basically this deity saw fit to give live the means to evolve so that it might fend for itself, express free will on a greater scale, and perhaps as part of a bigger plan for humans to learn the skill of genetic manipulation to prosper. Numbers from those recent polls would suggest this position actually being more common than evolution denial among Christians.
"The theory of Creationism"
Creationism is not a theory. It makes no predictions and there is no experiment to perform or evidence to be collected to render it falsifiable. Creationism is a faith. By definition.
"The theory of Creationism requires that god does exist."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Especially when it will be in Kentucky at their pet "Museum" in front of a cheering section consisting of a stacked deck of closed minds.
Really, what's the point?
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially when it will be in Kentucky at their pet "Museum" in front of a cheering section consisting of a stacked deck of closed minds.
Really, what's the point?
If Bill Nye is able to ignite the flame of reason in even one mind, then it was a sacrifice worth making. This is a war of minds and we're fighting an uphill battle.
People are stupid by nature--we are biologically wired for faith of all sorts. Most people will never actually see reason for themselves. Human beings pretty much require some form of faith system and best we can probably hope for is that those systems will eventually accept a quieter, more private role in peoples' lives.
Besides that, theists are necessarily skilled and practiced at this. They know how much work it requires. How many times do you think those Mormon kids get doors slammed in their faces in just one day? I doubt most of them get beyond a brief confrontation in a parking lot, but I bet they live for the chance to make a difference in just one person's life. I think a lot of critical thinkers could learn something from that. It's easy to humanity as a lost cause because most of it really is. But you have to be willing and eager to fight for the few that are ready to listen.
Re: (Score:3)
It's impossible to debate a scientific subject with someone who doesn't know the science. You end up with a Gish gallop [wikipedia.org] that's impossible to keep up with or refute reasonably.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This, a thousand times. You especially don't battle them on their own turf, giving credibility not only to the idiot, but also to his idiot theme park.
Re: (Score:3)
There are none so blind, as those who will not see.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking along these lines, but perhaps there is some value in those who haven't decided one way or another, yet, and would welcome hearing the two arguments put out all at once by people recognised as experts on both sides - so they can come to some conclusion.
Oh the bible, you make me laugh..... (Score:4, Informative)
It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother
me, it is the parts that I do understand.
-Mark Twain
One does well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament; the
proximity of so much impurity almost compels to this...I have searched
in it vainly for even a single congenial trait...everything in it is
cowardice and self-deception.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the
gentleman who reads it.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)
There can be no doubt that the Bible...became a stumbling-block in the
path of progress, scientific, social and even moral. It was quoted
against Copernicus as it was against Darwin.
-Preserved Smith
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
praise of intelligence.
-Bertrand Russell
With so many intelligent people warning you about it, perhaps you
should avoid it
Re: Oh the bible, you make me laugh..... (Score:5, Interesting)
And 1 Corinthians agrees:
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
Re:Oh the bible, you make me laugh..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad call (Score:4, Insightful)
Any God who would condemn their children to an eternity of pain and suffering solely based whether or not their beliefs match their story is a self-righteous prick and does not deserve to be a God.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the difference between "belittling other people's beliefs" and what you just did? Warnings about hell and damnation are actually quite condescending if you think about it.
If you want to be free to interpret your particular favorite holy book literally, go right ahead. I believe you should be able to. The price of that freedom is allowing others to choose a different fairytale. Or none at all. And as a consequence of allowing each to freely chose their own belief is that none of them have a place in
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the scientific 'facts' are easily explainable
Please you have plenty of text area to write in and use several posts. We slashoters can handle it BUT you can't use the bible to explain it. You need to explain it your self to us after all its really easy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, if you posit a magically all-powerful being, and have a good imagination, you can reconcile any discrepancy you find and make any story, no matter how contradictory to reality or itself, "make sense".
That said, you're obviously a poe. Nicely done. They style and content are excellent.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Dark Ages? Fuck, no. He's from Arkansas, circa 2014.
Re: Bad call (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, just so you don't forget, most of the hostility, violence, and torture was perpetrated BY Christians, not at them. Europe? Conquered by Christians. North and South America? Conquered by Christians. India? China? More conquest. And wherever they went they tended to make worshiping the local gods a crime punishable by torture, death, and/or forfeiture of assets to the Church.
Re:Bad call (Score:5, Informative)
Not many atheists go to warlord controlled countries to delivery medical supplies while unarmed and unprotected.
You are quite wrong there. Doctors Without Borders have quite a few atheists working for them. Humanists in general are quite empathic and helpful.
Waste of Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ham... pig....
We see what you did there. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
How do you pull that off? I mean, evolution on one hand and a personal god on the other are really incompatible ideas. Sounds to me as if you are just deluding yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, evolution on one hand and a personal god on the other are really incompatible ideas.
No, they actually aren't.
It's creationism vs. "evolution as the origin of life" that are incompatible. Evolution as "change over time" isn't. The former is a purely religious debate -- how did it happen when nobody was there to observe -- vs. scientific -- how might it have happened and/or what happens today? It is not incompatible to believe that there is a being that created the universe with a wonderful and complex intricacy that scientists spend their lives studying and describing. I think that it wou
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. But what the hell do they actually believe in and why are they not embarrassed?
Ok. But so WTF does he actually believe in? Evolution + personal god? That's a contradiction, you know? The seven day creationists are at least consistent (whacky to the bone).
Christian and creationist here. Yes, there are a handful of us on Slashdot, and there is, in fact, a bit of a gradient between "Atheist" and "Westboro Baptist Nutjob". I'm generally a moderate, and I believe that God (the Deity), the church (an establishment), and "Christian Culture" (how Christians interact with each other) are three different, distinct concepts, which means that there are 100,001 different subtleties between the beliefs of any one Christian. Therefore, answering the question in terms of t
Re: (Score:3)
believe me, there are a great many of christians who are equally upset at the hypocrisy.
as for YEC, it is a fairly recent creation (pun not intended). Most Christains dont actually believe it, though it gets all the attention lately.
my pet peeve is that, if in a country such as ours 80% of the population identifies as Christian (something like 55% Protestant and 25% Catholic), but politically the country is roughly (close enough) split 50/50 right and left, that means there are a considerable number of Chri
Re: (Score:3)
The telling part for me is how many different explanations (none of them based on facts or any reasonable science) people have come up with to explain the coexistence of evolution and God.
You'd think when their arguments are proven wrong so many times and they have to come up with new ones, eventually they'd actually consider the other side's point. But that's the problem with religion vs. science that is the very reason that the "debate" at the heart of TFA will be a joke - you can't debate faith since no
Re:Waste of Time (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always found this particular combination confusing. If evolutionary theory is true, there were no physical Adam and Eve. If there were no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, we do not need Christ's atonement.
If we don't need Christ's atonement, what possible use could there be for being a Christian?
Not trying to be confrontational, just wondering how you reconciled these things.
Re: (Score:3)
You go to church to get laid. Duh. The girls are preselected for gullibility.
What is the opposite of 'sausage fest'?
Re:Waste of Time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Waste of Time (Score:4)
It's called biblical ineffability--it's the idea that the Bible is NOT the literal Word of God, it is an allusion-and-metaphor filled collection of memoirs and tales by prophets inspired by God, and must be treated as such. Adopting that viewpoint allows one to read through the Bible as a rough guide, using critical thinking and personal experience to figure out for oneself what God or His prophets are saying.
Fair enough. It bears noting though that this approach works equally well when reading Moby Dick, 1984, Pride and Prejudice, The Power and the Glory, and for that matter, Superman comics.
Re: (Score:3)
My faith is not up for debate. It is my faith but my church does not believe in original sin. The university that is run by my church teaches evolution in science courses. If you do not believe that is fine and your choice and I will not try to convince you otherwise. Frankly that would be as foolish of a task as to try and convince the creator of the creationist museum he is wrong.
But if you want the simple 5 cent explanation I can give it to you. God loves the truth. Anything that is not based on truth do
Re: (Score:3)
My faith is not up for debate.
Then please keep it out of the debate.
Re: (Score:2)
You just follow Jesus's teaching as guidelines, without obsessing about the other stories that were made up in the book when hard questions didn't seem to have answers.
Some people believe in a god who set the universe's rules and pushed the button, let things evolve to their current (predestined) state, and loves all of his toys.
It is a bit confusing, but a lot less than young earth stuff because its doesn't change the obviousness of evolution (and a society following "love thy neighbor" rules isn't a bad w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
2) Watch Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" for the current scientific thought on how the universe started sans magic.
3) The downside is a bunch of people who think that faith is better than fact and fiction is better than reality who then go about teaching that me
Why? (Score:2)
Since they hold no precept to reason, they've already cut press releases to the faithful saying they won; in their world it's true.
Those who do abide by reason already know it's true; this won't make it any more true.
I really don't see what this will accomplish. If somebody *wants* to learn, they'll wiki it and learn from that starting point. It they don't, pushing it in their face just wastes time and annoys the pig.
So sorry fo Bill Nye (Score:3)
Guess somebody has to do this kind of yeoman's work.
Wasted effort? (Score:4, Insightful)
If creationist were open for debate, then they wouldn't be creationist and believe what was written by somebody hundreds of years ago without accepting any revisions.
Re:Wasted effort? (Score:4, Insightful)
Get ready... (Score:2, Funny)
Dammit bill. You're smart enough to know.... (Score:5, Funny)
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Support the creation museum? (Score:4, Interesting)
This won't turn out well. $25/ticket, supporting the morons in a profit making venture. Fuck no. Not that I'm in the neighborhood.
Only creationists will show up, bog knows who they'll get to moderate. Local southern baptist minister?
I see. 'if monkeys turned into humans how come there are still monkeys?' followed by a shout down in this 'debate'.
Re: (Score:3)
While I can't say I've personally spoken to that many Creationists, at least about Creationism, it's pretty hard to dispute that they are... well, 'morons' is a loaded term, but lacking in any sincere interest in evidence and reason. After all, the whole argument is "The Bible says it happened this way" - which, whatever your beliefs, is not logic.
At some point, beliefs just become ridiculous and attempting to debate them seriously is more credit than is deserved. Especially when the whole reason for the 'd
Article title correction: (Score:4, Insightful)
"Bill Nye to publicly punch self in genitals repeatedly."
I mean, the result will most likely be the same, will it not?
Debate rules are always unfair to science. (Score:5, Interesting)
Further, most of the "arguments" for creationism is asking questions, asking for proof about evolution or to explain this anomaly or that observation. Asking questions is easy, answering them takes much longer. So again it is unfair to give equal time to questions and answers.
Science demands full disclosure, sufficient time to review the evidence and to get a consensus on what the data is. Then the argument is about what explains the data. This creationism debate is not likely to persuade the creationists, it is likely to frustrate the scientists.
It is a fools errand. Best thing to do is to let them disbelieve in evolution and let us trust evolution to drive the creationists to extinction. In the last 400 years science has done a lot to reduce the influence of creationists and reduced their numbers a lot. Just read the Creationist rhetoric from 1920s or 1950s or 1870s and compare it the current set of arguments, you will see how weak their ilk has become. The only serious bastion for creationists are the fundamentalists in Islam and fundamentalist right wingers in the USA. Almost all the rest of the developed world have moved on, most of America has also accepted the explanatory powers of evolution. Just wait for these creationists to join the Dinosaurs.
I'm glad (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, it will be settled and we can all get on with our lives.
Truely pointless debate (Score:2)
I wish Bill Nye would do something actually useful.
Is Bill Nye qualified? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a question for the readers with professional qualifications (ie - PhD's):
Is Bill Nye qualified?
His Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] lists him as a scientist. He has no advanced degree, only a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. He has a couple of patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes, and served as "honorary professor" for five years.
Every time the "can amateurs do real science" question comes up, the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site. You can't do real science without an advanced degree, institutional funding, and collaboration.
In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.
Does he qualify as "gentleman scientist" [wikipedia.org]?
Is he the right person as spokesman for science in this debate?
(I applaud Bill Nye's contributions to science and education, and think he's eminently qualified. I just wanted to hear what the professionals think of his status as a scientist.)
Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (Score:5, Funny)
A rhododendron bush is qualified to make Ken Ham look like an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a question for the readers with professional qualifications (ie - PhD's):
Is Bill Nye qualified?
His Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] lists him as a scientist. He has no advanced degree, only a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. He has a couple of patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes, and served as "honorary professor" for five years.
Every time the "can amateurs do real science" question comes up, the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site. You can't do real science without an advanced degree, institutional funding, and collaboration.
In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.
Does he qualify as "gentleman scientist" [wikipedia.org]?
Is he the right person as spokesman for science in this debate?
(I applaud Bill Nye's contributions to science and education, and think he's eminently qualified. I just wanted to hear what the professionals think of his status as a scientist.)
That's interesting so Ham actually has more related schooling with his BA in Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology
Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (Score:4, Interesting)
Must be a liberal arts school.
. . .
Seriously. BA in a science is a _huge_ red flag. Never hire them. Your school should reconsider, if only to avoid the resume stain effect. It would be like calling all the degrees education degrees. Sure it might make the education degrees a little more valuable, but it would fuck everybody else.
Sorry, but no, your blanket statement about science B.A.'s is just wrong.
I did my bachelors in Physics at Cornell. The only thing that was offered to Physics majors was a B.A., since the Physics department was in the Arts & Sciences college. And yes, I had 6 semesters of math (calculus, linear algebra, vector calculus, complex analysis, etc.) If you don't want to hire me because Cornell gave me an inferior degree, well, your loss.
In reality, the distinction between B.A., and B.S., often has quite a bit to do with how the particular university is organized, and has precious little to do with curriculum.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably more qualified than most scientist. Being used to public speaking puts him ahead of the game if anything. This kind of thing tends to be more broad than deep. In the occasions where it does go into deep and narrow specifics, those are mostly gotchas, they normally do have answers but unless you know that specific one it is hard to come up with an answer without time to think about it.
Re: (Score:3)
First time I heard a professional needs a PhD.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not possible (Score:3)
Debate is predicated upon reason. To be a creationist you need to be irrational, so there cannot be a debate here. Instead we'll get the polite (or maybe not so polite) equivalent of a shouting match and people will point to it as if it were a debate.
Not to mention that there is nothing to debate. The debate is settled: creationism is not an accurate description of reality. If you think it is then you are wrong, unless you have some pretty bad-ass evidence, like winged humanoids without free will or DNA, or a giraffe skeleton from the Cambrian.
We should probably expand AIG in that summary (Score:4, Informative)
Do not stereotype all creationists. (Score:5, Interesting)
The most common one is Creationist vulgaris. (vulgar means common in Latin, it does not mean crude). They are the rank and file people who chip in money and votes. The votes and the money form the base of the food pyramid of this genus. The C vulgaris can be relied up on to show up for rallys, to cheer their side in "debates".
One level up the food chain comes Creationist predatori minoria. These are the local parish level civic leaders, community organizers. They too sincerely believe in creationism and believe not believing in it would cause gloom and doom. And they convince themselves, that to have strong faith means they have to believe in creationism despite the obvious and patent evidence they see against it. But mostly these people go for local fame, some local power and a feeling of self importance. These are the ones used by the species higher in the food pyramid to access the nourishment created by the C vulgaris.
The highest level of this ecological niche is occupied the head honcho, the top predator, Creationist predatori majoria. Their meal ticket is C vulgaris. They will send newsletters, gather them into lectures and scare them into donating big money for the "cause". They will convince C predatori minoria to gather the flock and deliver them to the creation museum each paying $24.99 or whatever and buy "Jesus" T shirts at 40$ a pop.
So please do not treat all the Creationists as one and the same. Pity the C vulgaris, for he does not know what he is doing. Try to show the self aggrandizement and obvious exploitation of the C predatori majoria to the minoria to make them less enthusiastic about being hand maidens in this enterprise. Starved of the nutrition, the majoria will diminish greatly in size. Hopefully.
Excercise in Futility (Score:5, Informative)
Besides the advice in that quote, the outcome of this "debate" won't change a thing. Creationists argue from emotional responses generated in their amygdalas. You can't change their minds with facts and reasoning because they are not open to the possibility of being wrong or learning something new. If it's possible to change their minds at all, and that's a pretty big "if", you will have to first win them over emotionally before they will let their guards down and attempt to actually follow the lines of reasoning you lay down for them. The most likely outcome in this debate is that you stomp the creationists with facts which will cause the people on your side to feel that they have won, but the reality is that you will probably be perceived by your opposition as a pompous jerk who is attempting to destroy their belief system just for fun, causing the rift between the two sides to grow bigger.
It is impossible to debate a creationist (Score:5, Informative)
Creationists choose faith over logic and facts. This isn't me being judgmental; they openly admit this, and take pride in it.
odd (Score:3)
I wish it was Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:3)
Bill is a great guy, good writer and presents well on script, but he's not the best debater or off the cuff speaker. I've seen him do many talk shows. He doesn't always connect with the audience. I think he just thinking a mile a minute and he needs some time to organize them together. Tyson is just much better at this kind of stuff.
St. Augustine had it right over 1500 years ago. (Score:5, Interesting)
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
“If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
– St. Augustine of Hippo, 5th Century AD (considered by some Protestants to be one of the theological fathers of the Reformation)
- See more at: http://truecreation.info/ [truecreation.info]
It goes like this: (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Nye: Show me scientific evidence of Creationism.
Ken Ham: Show me Scriptural evidence of evolution.
Debate over. Everyone loses.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that Ham and his ilk are not arguing on faith, they are making specific claims, virtually every one of which was debunked decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)