Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye To Debate Creationist Museum Founder Ken Ham
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.'"
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 :)
William George
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.
Reminds me of that old (possibly apocryphal) Twain quote: Don't try to teach a pig to sing - it'll waste your time and annoy the pig. Ham has his view, and no amount of actual data will change that. Heck, even the old Earth creationists think the guy's fundamentally dishonest.
Guess somebody has to do this kind of yeoman's work.
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.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
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'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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
"Bill Nye to publicly punch self in genitals repeatedly."
I mean, the result will most likely be the same, will it not?
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Finally, it will be settled and we can all get on with our lives.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I have a question for the readers with professional qualifications (ie - PhD's):
Is Bill Nye qualified?
His Wikipedia article 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"?
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.)
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.
The AiG this guy is from is the young-earth creationist group, with a lower-case "i". The AIG we hear of more often in the media is the "American Insurance Group", which is not related. The font that slashdot renders this in does not help in distinguishing a lower-case from a capiltalized I.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"
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.
Debates are built on logic and facts.
Creationists choose faith over logic and facts. This isn't me being judgmental; they openly admit this, and take pride in it.
If Nye wants to minimize Ham's influence then debating him is probably not the right approach to take. It serves to increase Ham's popularity among the set of folks that's already ideologically in line with his position. I may be wrong, but I don't see many folks who are "on the fence" both 1) watching the debate and 2) being swayed by it. If anyone is swayed by it then it will most likely be due to the two mens' "tone" rather than the actual facts they present during the debate. If Nye comes off looking smug, shrill and/or hostile to religion in general (as opposed to merely hostile to Ham's interpretation) then he may end up having the opposite effect of what he'd prefer.
But to Creationsts, bible quotes are proof.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Maybe there's a "Genesis: Special Edition" staring Jesus in the same way that Hayden Christensen appears as Anakin in Return of the Jedi.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The Creationist museum did something interesting you don't seem to be aware of: It went back, taking the same primary evidence (Facts) that was used in creating the current evolutionary model of history, and then re-interpenetrates it using the Bible as another source of facts.
“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/
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 then lets **publish it in a peer reviewed research journal**
I always want to hear new ideas, but if anyone wants to use the language of science they can't pick and choose.
Also, as others have pointed out, this doesn't really seem like a "debate" rather a dog show where everyone has decided before the event which dog is their favorite, and the playing out of the actual event is more like a pep rally.
When both sides want to talk the same language and genuinely are willing to be proven wrong and change I'll be able to share your excitement.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Bill Nye: Show me scientific evidence of Creationism.
Ken Ham: Show me Scriptural evidence of evolution.
Debate over. Everyone loses.