Bill Nye’s Take on the Nye-Ham Debate

[edhopper]

Nye's thoughts on his debate. Of interest here, since the debate was discussed.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes_take_on_the_nye-ham_debate/

[cbayer]

1. Synopsis - "I won"

I am sorry that Nye felt the need to so defensive about having taken this on.

[edhopper]

2. If that's your take

I thought it was insightful about how he prepared for it and his strategy.

But i forgot you don't like people challenging others beliefs.

[cbayer]

3. Say what?

I thought it was interesting as well. Sorry that I didn't say that.

And I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't like people challenging others beliefs.

When it comes to evolution, I think they need to be challenged constantly.

[cleanhippie]

8. "I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't like people challenging others beliefs."

Are you SERIOUS? You really have no idea where one would think that about you? Seriously?

[edhopper]

12. Yes

you should have. It sound to me like you thought it was pointless and self indulgent.

[cbayer]

15. I apologize.

I have mixed feelings, and none of them strong, about this debate.

While I hate to see Ham get any publicity at all, I do think that creationism has to be countered at every opportunity.

And I really like the Science Guy and am sorry that he took so much heat for this, but I also understand the point that agreeing to debate Ham gives him some modicum of legitimacy.

[edhopper]

16. It is an ongoing discussion

on how to defend against creationism.

[rug]

10. Happy Easter, cbayer!

[cbayer]

13. And a very Happy Easter to you, Rug!

I'm listening to the dozens of churches ring their bells.

[longship]

4. An excerpt.

This whole thing started when a crew from BigThink.com asked me about creationism. I was in New York to promote Internet-based science education. While on camera, I remarked that if you, as an adult, want to hold on to a completely unreasonable explanation of the Earth’s natural history that is useless from a practical standpoint, that’s your business. But we don’t want our kids, our science students, to be indoctrinated into that weird worldview, because our kids are the scientists and engineers of the future. They need to be the innovators that drive the U.S. economy in the coming decades. These were offhand, albeit heartfelt, remarks, nominally off the topic I sat down to talk about. As of this writing, the excerpted video with my observations about creationism has logged over 6.3 million views.


Among the viewers apparently was one Ken Ham, who is the head of a congregation in Kentucky that holds doggedly to the idea that the world is somehow merely 6,000 years old. Furthermore, he has raised millions and millions of dollars for what he calls the “Creation Museum,” a facility across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, Ohio, in Petersburg, Kentucky. He wrote to me and challenged me to a debate. For several months, I put the offer or proposal aside thinking the whole thing would blow over. After all, his challenge was based on a minute and a half of video that exists with little context. He was persistent. So, as the weeks went by and we corresponded, I acceded the challenge. More specifically, I was willing to come to his facility if the topic was: “Is creation a viable model of origins in the modern scientific era?” Note that this title does not include the word “evolution,” nor does it connote or imply that we would discuss evolution specifically.

As you may know, once in a while I am invited to offer my thoughts on Fox News. And I love it—I love being in the studio right there with those reporters with the opportunity to look them in the eyes (or lens). As you may infer, I’m not much for their style, and I usually disagree with just about everything a Fox commentator has to say, but I relish the confrontation. I had that same feeling about Ken Ham’s building. I wanted to be in the belly of the beast. I drove by there when I was on other business in Cincinnati a few years ago. The building was closed, but driving around the grounds I saw numerous depictions of ancient dinosaurs. One infamous sculpture featured humans of apparent European descent astride a triceratops-style ancient animal adorned with Christmas lights. I wanted to see the inside someday.

I do about a dozen college appearances every year. It’s a privilege that I enjoy immensely. At first, I figured this appearance and this encounter would get about the same amount of notice as a nice college gig. There’d be a buzz on Twitter and Facebook, but the world would go on spinning without much notice on the outside. Not here: the creationists promoted it like crazy, and soon it seemed like everyone I met was talking about it.

That's the first four paragraphs. Nye goes on discussing his strategy and the outcome, including the question, "where did the funding for the Ark Encounter project come from?"

I still fervently believe that it was a mistake for Nye to do this, as do many prominent biologists.

R&K

[cbayer]

5. It seems that the objection that you and others hold about him doing this at all

is what led to this rather long explanation of what he did.

The fact that he "won" the debate should surprise no one.

[longship]

17. No doubt.

But Ham made money on it. And he can claim that he debated a scientist and also claim the he won, whether the latter is true or not. That's why there are some of us who think these debates should be refused every time.

[cbayer]

18. I truly see your take on this, and, as I said, I am ambivalent.

I had a huge debate with myself when presented with the opportunity to see the Creation Museum.

I finally decided against it, but I came up with a lot of reasons why I should.

Final straw - I didn't want to give him a dime.

[longship]

19. PZ Myers visited there with a bunch of skeptics.

[cbayer]

20. I read that at the time and also found it hilarious.

[Warpy]

26. I'm sure if you asked Ken Ham, he'd declare victory

because the debate didn't change his views, at all. Interestingly enough, Evangelical Christians who were polled overwhelmingly said Nye won the debate. I doubt if any of them changed their minds, either.

[cbayer]

36. It's good that evangelicals thought Nye won.

Was there data showing what their views on creationism/evolution were before the debate? Many evangelicals do not endorse creationism. That's more a fundamentalist position. I also know some jewish people that believe it.

Anyway, I'm not as pessimistic as you. I think people are capable of learning, particularly when someone like Nye does the explaining.

[Warpy]

40. No, they were self identified evangelicals

and many of them were likely quite sensible before the debate.

Ham is another matter, he's made his whole career based on being nonsensical, something you'd think his followers would notice. After all, how can they be sure he knows how to get them into heaven? It's not like he's made the trip, himself.

[cbayer]

41. I think Ham has made his whole career on self-promotion

and trying to make a buck.

Snake oil salesmen, no more or less, imo.

He, like all those that have gone before him, know exactly who to prey on (pun intended, lol).

[Warpy]

42. Yes, he's good at exorcising (pun intended) religion

by being so over the top that most sensible people think he's nuts.

All those televised evangelicals have the same premise, that every dollar a poor person sends them goes toward bribing them out of hell. The Catholics used that for centuries until the Protestants put a stop to it. Now it's come full circle with the pompadoured televangelists.

[skepticscott]

22. So what specific harm was done by debating?

And what was gained?

Who can Ham claim he "won" to other than a bunch of brainwashed fundies who were already completely sold on his nonsense anyway?

[gcomeau]

24. Immediately following the debate...

...there was a sudden (and we're assured totally coincidentally timed... uh huh...) surge in funding allowing him to go forward on construction of his idiotic creationist themed park. All the better to expand the brainwashing efforts of little kiddies with.


It also allows him to make the claim that his ridiculous ideas WARRANT a debate in the scientific community, which they do not. This is like someone at NASA agreeing to a high profile public debate with a member of the flat earth society in which it is pretended that there is any possibility that both sides will be able to make some kind of legitimate argument and are deserving of consideration. That helps nobody but the fringe crackpots looking for anything to give them the appearance of legitimacy.

[skepticscott]

29. If 40% of Americans believed in a flat earth

the way they do in young earth creationism, if there was constant pressure to teach flat earth geology in public schools, and if public officials were regularly spouting flat earth rhetoric, then I'd say yes, NASA should be stepping up to the plate to help show why it's nonsense. But none of those are remotely the case, so your analogy falls flat.

As far as funding for Ham's little dinosaur disneyland, so what? Who's getting brainwashed there other than kids who would have been brainwashed with creationism anyway? Let them waste their money. That's not the audience that matters. And no one is saying that a debate within the scientific community is warranted. This is a public debate, aimed at educating people who don't know any better. If you constantly dodge a debate, then they never know any better.

[gcomeau]

31. ...that is EVEN MORE REASON not to play along

... with the mass delusion that it should be taken in any way seriously.

You want to educate all those people on the facts? Great! Want to explain to them all the myriad lies and distortions and misrepresentations they're being fed? Wonderful! A formal verbal debate with some con man showman is *not* the forum in which those things should occur.

Debates are for when both sides have some plausible grounds upon which to claim they at least might possibly be right.

" Let them waste their money. "

And the taxpayers. Check out how much money the state government is offering to put into this thing.

And hey, why not right? It is after all a legitimate subject of debate in the scientific community! After all, we just watched such a debate occur! It's *totally* not a thinly veiled religious evangelism project that the state shouldn't be allowed to touch with a 100 foot pole...

[skepticscott]

34. You're making a lot of declarations about the way

things should and shouldn't be, without any evidence.

The "mass delusion" already IS taken seriously by a great many people. A great many people DO think that both sides have "plausible grounds" on which to base their claims. If you're suggesting that those people who can still be convinced of the truth will be moved by evolutionists saying "creationist arguments are worthless and we're not even going to dignify them by responding", then you're deluding yourself.

I said nothing about taxpayers. But do you seriously think that NOT having a debate was going to reverse a decision on funding that had already been made? That's been going on for a long time, and has nothing to do with the debate.

[gcomeau]

39. I'm making arguments.

First part is proposition (doing this stuff lends support to creationists while accomplishing very little)

Second part is support (HAM GOT FREAKING SUPPORT, VERY LITTLE ELSE ACCOMPLISHED).

Try to follow along.

"The "mass delusion" already IS taken seriously by a great many people."

Yeah, we covered that part. It was kind of my point. Do I really need to repeat that THAT IS EVEN MORE REASON not to lend any support to the idea that it *should* be taken seriously? Things are bad enough already without making them worse.

"I said nothing about taxpayers"

Yes, I'm aware. I did... as a means of calling that little detail to your attention since you seemed to be either ignoring or unaware of it while making your blithe "let them waste their money" statement.

"But do you seriously think that NOT having a debate was going to reverse a decision on funding that had already been made?"

YES. Because Ham had to raise his part of the funds first in order for the bulk of the state spending to happen. Which he was falling well short of. Until the damn debate happened.

[longship]

25. Well, there is that side to the issue.

Michael Shermer, for instance, regularly debates these people, so he sees nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, and from your point, Eugenie Scott has likened creationism debates to Globetrotter games. Nobody cares about the Washington Generals, they attend to see the Globetrotters. The analogy is not perfect because the Globetrotters never lose, however from the dynamic of the audience it may be apt. If that's the case, why bother debating?

I guess I would prefer that these debates be generally refused because they really are nothing but a stunt, which is why the creationists do them so willingly and so often. There's nothing wrong with refusing and stating clearly why. If only all the scientists did that.

Apparently some disagree. So I guess that we are going to have to live with the situation regardless of anybody's opinion on the matter. That may work out okay.

[skepticscott]

28. Well, Eugenie Scott is being a little disingenuous

and so are people like Dawkins. They spend a significant amount of time debating creationists too, they just don't do it in an interactive format in front of a live audience. But they concern themselves a great deal with publicly answering and discrediting creationist claims and arguments, so they clearly recognize that doing so is warranted. Given that, I'm not sure what reasons for refusing a live debate they can offer that will resonate with the people that matter.

[longship]

32. That's right. The context matters.

Scott has explicitly said that very thing. She will be interviewed in the media, and has done some debates -- notably one with William F. Buckley -- but I cannot recall a recent one.

AFAIK Dawkins generally will not debate biology, but will do religion debates on occasion.

Scott recommends that when the creationist claims that biologists are afraid of debating them they respond with a simple statement of why they won't do it, framing it to the advantage of the science. She has a more specific statement. I imagine the NCSE site may have that.

I agree that these can be difficult decisions and should be taken only with the idea of advantage.

However, I think Bill Nye made the wrong decision here and did a poor job of letting Ham gain from the affair. At minimum I would have insisted that the gate be donated to some neutral charity instead of going into Ham's pocket.

Oh well.

Regards.

[skepticscott]

33. The question of "why bother" responding to creationist claims is answered

If the only question is "context", then people like Eugenie Scott need to look at how well the strategy of refusing to engage creationists directly (and instead disseminating her ideas and letting the creationists disseminate theirs) is working. When the percentage of people believing in young earth creationism has remained essentially constant for decades, despite having overwhelming evidence on the side of evolution, that should tell her something. Obviously no one is saying that they should start doing ONLY live debates and forget about every other educational tool, or that anything they try is guaranteed to work better, but it's pretty hard to argue that debating publicly will make things much worse than they already are.

[longship]

35. Well, one could see that debates haven't done much good as well.

Of course the answer is better science education, science reporting, and a more positive view of science in the media in general.

I don't see where debating these nimrods is going to accomplish anything if the public thinks what they apparently think about science. That's why the numbers have not moved in decades. I don't think it has anything to do with these so-called debates. It's just that our science education basically sucks.

[exboyfil]

6. I saw several missed opportunities

that a biologist like Ken Miller might have exploited, but overall Nye did a pretty good job for a mechanical engineer (I am a mechanical engineer as well). If I heard "There is a book" one more time I probably would have thrown my copy of that book at my computer screen.

[cheyanne]

7. Science and religion cannot be debated: this was a faux debate.

They are totally different systems that have nothing in common.

Science is a system of thought that is based testing all hypotheses and getting repeatable results (sorry, not scientist, best I can do).

Religion is a system of thought that is based on faith in an agency that is not amenable to testing.

There is no common ground on which these two systems can "debate" anything.
Science tries to answer the question "how". Religion, "why".

This generates confusion because when someone asks "why", they can be asking either how something works or why it exists.

Some people may believe in science says something about religion, but that doesn't mean that there is any question of either of them affecting the process of the other.

Some people may believe that that religion says something about science but since religion does not use science's process, their beliefs cannot be part of the scientific process.

Nye's belief that "science/religion" could be debated shows only that even the most rational people can confuse their categories.

Next time a scientist is asked to debate religion and is tempted to think that this could enhance science's acceptance by the non-believers, the scientist should just remind the religious that one can only debate scientific theories within the scientific process. If religion has a problem with a scientific hypothesis, it is up to religion to use scientific methods to prove or disprove a their belief.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. when religion makes claims that contradict science, they are not totally different

systems that have nothing in common. They are systems that overlap.

[edhopper]

11. But Nye wasn't debating religion

he was debating Creationism, something many people, including a lot of GOP politicians, want taught in science classes.
He debated the science, he couldn't help if his opponents answer was mainly, "it's in this book."

So it seems it wasn't Nye who confused the two, but Hamm.

[immoderate]

27. Note that the "scientific method" is not "scientific."

By that I mean it's a methodology that is derived from epistemology, not science. In the same sense, the debate was between systems, and which would more likely explain what we experience.

I do not expect conversions to take place, but for those who have had limited exposure to a POV, a debate can have an impression.

--imm

[Vashta Nerada]

30. To summarize: science is based on evidence, religion is based on nothing.

[cbayer]

37. No, that's not what she said at all.

But it is a very simplistic and rather fundamental way of looking at things.

[cbayer]

38. While I agree with much of what you say here, I agree with edhopper

that the debate wasn't about science vs. religion. It was about recognizing that in cases where data is available, religious explanations should be challenged and those who hold them should be encouraged to let them go.

Bill Nye and others are able to do this without challenging or attacking someone's entire belief system, and, imho, that's a good thing in the long run.

[cheyanne]

14. Thanks for the comments.

First, though religion may claim many things that contradict science. Wait, I think I mean that when religion claims that it has scientific proof of an article of faith that contradicts science, religion is not overlapping on science, it just thinks it is. If it was to overlap science, it would have to set up a hypothesis that can be disproved or proved and accepted into the scientific mainstream. But in this case, creationism does not do that. They claim that there is scientific proof for their beliefs, but they have not accepted science's process of arriving at "proof".

Scientists should, of course, deny these claims are scientific, since they can't be debated in scientific terms. When a child is crying for the moon, you shouldn't agree that he can have it, but you don't have to go into detail about why.

Second, you're right that Ham was also confusing categories, however, Ham does not know that. Nye, who should be aware of that confusion, should bring that up at the beginning of the debate so he can explain to Ham how to take his scientific evidence and present it to be published. Once he has done that Nye can debate him.

[skepticscott]

21. Well, they can be debated in scientific terms

Creationists make truth claims about the physical world and so do evolutionary scientists. Those claims can be evaluated scientifically, based on the evidence in favor or against them. Creationists go into denial about anything that contradicts their original claims, sure, but that doesn't change the fact.

[Gothmog]

23. That was a great article

Thanks for sharing