Science vs. creationism

[Curmudgeoness]

Bill Nye debated Ken Ham of the Creation Museum. I am not sure how I feel about giving enough credence to Ham to even bother with a debate, but it is time that someone actually disputed the 6000 year old Earth theory.

The full debate is posted here, but there is also commentary.

My favorite statements (although I did not watch the debate):

"Then, as far as Noah being an extraordinary shipwright, I'm extraordinarily skeptical," Nye says. He cites his own family's background in New England, where people spent their lives learning how to build ships.

"It's very reasonable, perhaps, to you that Noah had superpowers and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members," Nye says. "But to me, this is just not reasonable."

When scientists make assumptions, Nye says, "they're making assumptions based on previous experience. They're not coming out of whole cloth. So, next time you have a chance to speak, I encourage you to explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago — completely — and there's no record of it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham


Noah had "superpowers"! Superman, Spiderman, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Noah.

[TxDemChem]

1. I thought Nye did wonderfully!

Ham's arguments were terrible. But I did kind if wish Nye would have asked why Ham only used Genesis 1 rather than Gebesis 2. I think that would have been worthwhile to mention. And Ham's obsession with dogs and finches was hilarious.

And then he had the nerve to try to redefine "science."

On the flip side, I got pretty tipsy playing the debate drinking game. Every you-weren't-there argument by Ham just made me want to shake him and say, "you weren't there either and it seems your god got confused between Gen 1 and 2."

Okay, I digress.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. LOL, I love the drinking game you devised.

It amazes me that anyone would think that "you weren't there" is an adequate argument. Nye handled this well, even it is seems to me that it was a futile endeavor.

[TxDemChem]

4. I wish I were that creative.

I accidentally came upon it online earlier that day. I was a bit worried before the debate, but Nye pulled it off pretty well.

[trotsky]

3. The best thing that came out of the "debate" was the revelation that...

Nothing would change Ken Ham's mind.

But evidence would change Bill's.

Yeah, I hate giving idiots like Ham the appearance of equal footing. But at the same time, ignoring them isn't making them go away. But Bill did a great job making the debate not about creationism vs. evolution, but about how we should approach learning about the world.

[TxDemChem]

5. That was the most poignant point!

[Promethean]

6. It is too bad

that religionists see that as a weakness. From our perspective that demonstrates Bill's intellectual integrity. From theirs Ken showed strength.

[progressoid]

8. I don't think it changed these people's minds either:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?bftw

banghead: :

[Curmudgeoness]

10. In answer to that last idiot,

because we did not COME FROM MONKEYS! Ancestral relationships are not a direct line. It is a tree, not a line.

That is one of the arguments that really pisses me off for the ignorance of the subject that it imparts.

[CallmeJoe]

11. lel

I bet most of these people have heard the refutations of these "points" especially, the monkey one. I think this debate was a mistake, at this points everyone who was on the fence already picked a side.

[Curmudgeoness]

13. I disagree. The "on the fence" people need facts.

That is why they are still on the fence. The only thing I do agree with is that the people who showed up at the debate were not on the fence....they were Ham supporters or Nye supporters. This really does need more exposure so the people who just don't know enough of the facts can get them. After seeing the debate, I can say that most people would agree that Nye is the one with the facts.

[onager]

7. Nye was perfect for this debate.

Because he's more of an entertainer than a "serious scientist." Not to take anything away from Nye in the science department - he's certainly an entertainer who knows his science and evolution. I've seen him in person at Skeptics Society events.

But the "serious scientists" can often come across as arrogant and overbearing. How many times have we seen those terms used to describe Dawkins & Co. in the "R" group (along with just about ALL atheists, naturally, except for the "I'm an atheist but..." types.)

Nye comes across as more of a regular guy, not one of those suspicious pointy-headed academics with their no doubt atheist-Commie-inspired book larnin.'

In fact, most of the real scientists will no longer publicly debate creationists. I agree with them on that. I think it was Dawkins who said, "They need the publicity. We don't."

Someone like Ham gets enormous cred from the Know-Nothings, just by standing onstage and spouting his rubbish alongside someone like Dawkins. "See? A real evolutionist is up here debating me about this, which proves there is still something to debate about this THEORY."

It's a trap, and the scientists are right to avoid it, IMO.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. Really good point about why Nye was a great choice to do this.

He did sound rational and also understandable. I do know that scientists have a harder time relating to people who are not trained.

[onager]

12. Anyone remember Nye on Fox News?

Back in 2011, Nye appeared on Fox News to talk about evidence of ancient volcano activity on the Moon.

The Fox News anchor immediately tried to tie those Moon volcanos to...global warming!

And in an echo of Creationist "thought," the anchor asked: "Why aren't they still erupting?"

For a moment, poor old Nye looked like someone had clubbed him upside the head. Then he went on to very patiently explain how science works, and why we shouldn't ignore it:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2011/07/28/fox-anchor-wonders-if-moon-volcanoes-mean-globa/183468

[Curmudgeoness]

14. I don't remember that one.

I can imagine how some questions are so ignorant that it is hard to comprehend. Glad that he was able to answer the stupid question and explain things. That is one thing that he has always been good at.

[Lordquinton]

15. I thought maybe you meant this one

Where he slammed the guy with the effects of Carbon Dioxide on Venus. The one you posted was atually rather good, and I though the questions were mostly on target, and solid (asking why they aren't still erupting was, like Nye said, a good one, because it follows logically, they obviously aren't, but why aren't they? and many people would ask that).

This is why we have to counter the trolls, not ignore them.

[onager]

16. Yes, good point.

Unfortunately I have to ignore them, having neither the knowledge or patience to counter them. And "Fox News" instantly puts me into attack mode.

But yesterday I had a great experience. I was in a local hobby shop looking around. Suddenly my ears pricked up when I heard somebody ask: "Did anybody else see that online debate between Bill Nye and the creationist Ken Ham?"

The speaker was an old geezer (pretty much like me!). A guy I often see in the shop, but never talked to much.

He went on to say: "I Googled some of the things Ham said and he was just flat-out lying."

Ha! The Pope recently gave God credit for inventing the Internet. So I'm happy to see that's working out about as well as all the rest of God's plans.

[Lordquinton]

17. Oh I agree fully

And the look of surprise on Bill's face at that question was priceless, and he praised they guy like a puppy finally peeing on the grass instead of his pillow. The rest of the interview was a train wreck though.

Glad to hear the debate went well, I was so worried that it would go as they usually do, but I think Bill is the prime guy for the job, and it is kinda his life goal to educate people and discredit bad science. He has credibility as a science guy (The Science Guy) where Dawkins and almost every other person who goes against creationism gets slathered with the "Anti-Theist" label so they can be safely ignored.