= new reply since forum marked as read
as if they were science.
They are however, trying to have creationism taught as an alternative to evolution ... and some saps, close to half the country actually, fall for it.
Arguing from authority as you just did (ie., "the vast majority of scientists condemn blah blah blah"
, doesn't help the poor saps to question creationism.
Creationists try to advance their insane beliefs not by showing how creationism provides a better description of how the world works, but by trying to pick holes in evolution. Last night, Bill Nye turned that around. He pressured Ham to provide creationisms answer for a number of very specific facts. For instance, if the grand canyon was created by the great flood, a flood that covered the entire earth, why is there only one grand canyon? Or, if the earth is only 6000 years old, how does a creationist explain the many thousands of layers contained in ice cores.
By doing so, Nye is helping to create some very simple questions that creationists can't answer. Questions that a kid in Tennessee can take to science class.
Fortunately, we don't have the same kind of problem with gravity.
Simple really. Dear.
The public opinion on this issue over the last couple of years have been moving in the wrong direction http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
I am firm believer in the best way to combat ignorance is to debate the issue (i.e., the best defense to bad speech is good speech). I note that there was a surprising convert due to this debate http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/
And while you’d expect most folks to deem Nye the winner (which they have), Ham is receiving criticism from a source you might not expect: televangelist Pat Robertson.
On the Wednesday edition of his TV show, “The 700 Club,” Robertson indirectly implored Ham to put a sock in it, criticizing Ham’s view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
“Let’s face it, there was a bishop [James Ussher] … who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years,” Robertson began. “There ain’t no way that’s possible … To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.”
“We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that’s found in science,” Robertson continued, “and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.”
“Let’s be real,” Robertson begged, “let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”
Again, debate can be helpful. Here Nye raised the issue and even Pat Robertson stepped up and told Ham to shut up. The "Lets not make a joke of ourselves" line will see some play in the future.
BTW, there were also lawyers and experts who were taking the position that Professor Michael Mann should not sue the National Review. http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2012/10/climate-scientist-mann-faces-obstacles-winning-libel-lawsuit-legal-experts-say Prof. Mann ignored this advice and still sued the National Review.
I love the fact that Nye was successful in his debate and I am hoping that Prof. Mann is successful in his efforts. Again, the best remedy to bad speech is good speech.
Let me explain, because I want to support what I'm saying.
First of all, here's a neat reference for anyone who wants to be able to counter all this YEC nonsense:
http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/0520249267/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391624387&sr=1-1&keywords=the+counter+creationism+handbook
Looks like it's out of stock through Amazon directly, but there are used copies available, and when I buy books from Amazon I almost always buy used. The best value, I think. I got my copy years ago from Border's Books. So sad that Borders is no longer with us. But moving on:
I watched the entire program last night, my little reference in hand, and making a few notes. By the time it was over I felt like I'd been run over by a truck. My overall assessment is that it was a useless exercise, for all the reasons you've mentioned, and more.
Ham spent almost the entire time on what was really a sermon about how God is great and Jesus died for our sins and how he believes the Bible because it's true - a tautology if I ever heard one. All this had nothing whatever to do with the issue at hand.
Bill Nye allowed himself to be drawn into this morass and to counter with all sorts of interminable explanations, which, while scientifically accurate, undoubtedly lost that audience of (mostly) true believers after the first sentence or two.
Here's what the book noted above says about public debates.
p. xxviii)Here are a few issues that Ham referred to, not necessarily by name, that Nye could have disposed of in a few sentences instead of a long-winded explanation.
"You weren't there - "Yes, because 'there' is here. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today." ( ibid. 22)
Abiogenesis (how did life begin?) - Evolution does not deal with how life began. Evolution is about change over time of life as it already exists.
Room for God in Science - Evolution is descriptive. It has nothing to say about God, one way or the other. (This is difficult for some people to wrap their minds around).
Many scientists are creationists - "The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence shows, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and no valid arguments against it." (ibid. 16)
And so forth.
Bill Nye knows his science but isn't skilled in dealing with the true believers. I would like to see an encounter between Neil deGrasse Tyson (NOVA) and someone like Ham. But Tyson wouldn't lower himself to participate in such a debate. He is, might I say, quite CRANKY about dealing with these people. For evidence, please see his recent interview with Bill Moyers on http://billmoyers.com
From the recently retired executive director, Eugenie Scott:
Debaters on our side of this issue, I assume, participate in the hope of improving the public's understanding of evolution and the nature of science, leading to increased support for the teaching of evolution in the public schools uncompromised by religious dogma. It is a worthy goal. (Unfortunately, some debate to gratify their egos.)
As I have argued elsewhere (Scott 1994) and as argued by the other contributors in this issue of RNCSE, such debates are counterproductive. They confuse the public about evolution and the nature of science; they increase the membership and swell the coffers of their creationist sponsors; they fuel local enthusiasm for creationism, thereby contributing to public pressure on local teachers to teach creationism or downplay evolution.
More at link, below.
Confronting Creationism.
Eugenie Scott has been a rock star in this battle. As executive director of the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) for over three decades, she's the real deal. Eugenie is a superstar, like Carl Sagan.
If I were Bill Nye, I would have told Ken Ham to fuck off. (As would have Eugenie.)
