Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate Catch-All

Pages

While 'Catch-All' might be a bit grandiose, I am interested in the opinions of our forum members here. Who made the best arguments? Was anybody's mind changed by the debate? Will Bill Nye ever stop wearing bow-ties (hopefully not, I have it on good authority that they are 'cool')?

Should Bill Nye even have engaged in this debate? Did it serve a useful purpose?

Blam.

I love Bill Nye but I'm not sure I can really watch this. How many appeals to emotion did Ken Ham make in lieu of presenting testable evidence?

While I think Bill Nye unequivocally won, it's not really an event that he needed to "drop to that level."

The problem with creationists is that the bible said something, therefore it is true. That's it. Full stop. You aren't talking anyone away from that position, even if you present all the evidence in the world - evidence that contradicts a Creationists' worldview is an evil atheist plot to do... something.

I, personally, have no time to waste on people who choose to ignore reality.

I know Nye was catching a good bit of flack for this debate because it was argued that he was giving Creationists the appearance of equal footing and also generating income for the Creationist Museum through sales of the dvd with this debate. While I get the argument of "Don't acknowledge them, there's nothing to debate." I also don't see how you can just sit back and shake your head at people like this while you watch their ideas become institutionalized through law in some states.

Ken Ham actually did say that nothing would convince him that the Bible was wrong.

Xeknos wrote:

While I think Bill Nye unequivocally won, it's not really an event that he needed to "drop to that level."

The problem with creationists is that the bible said something, therefore it is true. That's it. Full stop. You aren't talking anyone away from that position, even if you present all the evidence in the world - evidence that contradicts a Creationists' worldview is an evil atheist plot to do... something.

I, personally, have no time to waste on people who choose to ignore reality.

That's an interesting point you bring up. The question was asked 'What will it take to change your mind?' to both of them. Bill Nye responded that even one fossil out of place, or any other bit of evidence that disproves any of the theories, would have changed his mind. Ken Ham basically said 'Nothing, because the Bible'.

Edited to add: Linked for size - both responses to that question.

Xeknos wrote:

While I think Bill Nye unequivocally won, it's not really an event that he needed to "drop to that level."

The problem with creationists is that the bible said something, therefore it is true. That's it. Full stop. You aren't talking anyone away from that position, even if you present all the evidence in the world - evidence that contradicts a Creationists' worldview is an evil atheist plot to do... something.

I, personally, have no time to waste on people who choose to ignore reality.

This. I respect the Hell out of Bill Nye and I really respect him for doing this because he's just put himself in the crosshairs of what is undoubtedly going to be a tsunami of religious hatred directed his way. I'm sure he dealt with a certain amount of that every day but it will multiple exponentially now. But at the same time, the problem with arguing with the extremist argument of religion is that there is no convincing them. All the debates, evidence and whatever else in the world won't convince them to believe anything beyond what's convenient and desirable. It's an absolute no-win situation. The true battles are not trying to make them change their beliefs but ensuring that they don't get any legislative power in which to force them on others.

Well I guess that panel you posted pretty much answered my initial question.

Robear wrote:

Ken Ham actually did say that nothing would convince him that the Bible was wrong.

As Nye pointed out, though, it's only Ham's particular worldview that clashes with science. Plenty of religious people out there have no problem with evolution, the Big Bang, or any of the other things Nye mentioned. So it's not even that the Bible is wrong in this regard - it's Ham's very specific interpretation that is demonstrably false.

I doubt Bill Nye went in thinking he'd change Ham's mind. But maybe he's changed the mind of someone else watching the debate. Maybe.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I doubt Bill Nye went in thinking he'd change Ham's mind. But maybe he's changed the mind of someone else watching the debate. Maybe.

Yeah this is what I think as well.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I doubt Bill Nye went in thinking he'd change Ham's mind. But maybe he's changed the mind of someone else watching the debate. Maybe.

I've mentioned elsewhere (I forget which thread) that my sister was posting damn near every day some link to "Answers In Genesis" promoting the upcoming "debate", and I actually stated at one point in a public reply that the debate was pointless. Paraphrased, "it will be treated as essentially a sporting event, each side will cheer for their team, and at the end nothing new will come out of it, no one will be a clear winner because they're each playing by different rules, no one's mind will be changed by the debate, and both teams will think that their side clearly won."

Judging from what I've seen as a result, and from the forty or so minutes I could stomach watching it, my prediction was 100% accurate.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/2144...

This is what I was thinking through most of it.

Honestly, watching it made me uncomfortable. I think I was afraid of a Bush-Gore 2000 debate, where some combination of low expectations and context-altering buzz quotes would cause an "upset."

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/2144...

This is what I was thinking through most of it.

Honestly, watching it made me uncomfortable. I think I was afraid of a Bush-Gore 2000 debate, where some combination of low expectations and context-altering buzz quotes would cause an "upset."

deathandtaxes wrote:

And when he mentioned “observational science” he opened Bill Nye up to the one simple question he should have asked that pierces right to the heart of the debate:

Have you ever directly observed evidence of god?

No, he should not have done that. That's such an easy out. The answer: "One need only look at the wonder of creation to directly observe evidence of God." It's a sure crowd pleaser.

Ah, good call :). I would have been totally Ackbar'd had been the one debating.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Ah, good call :). I would have been totally Ackbar'd had been the one debating.

Oddly enough if Star Wars had any concept of evolution Ackbar would've been sitting in a bathtub while making that quote. Or better yet, one of those un-spillable sippy cups. Wouldn't want to make a mess when the ship gets hit.

imbiginjapan wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Ah, good call :). I would have been totally Ackbar'd had been the one debating.

Oddly enough if Star Wars had any concept of evolution Ackbar would've been sitting in a bathtub while making that quote. Or better yet, one of those un-spillable sippy cups. Wouldn't want to make a mess when the ship gets hit.

Don't be silly... the whole ship would be filled with water.... or maybe... space water?!

Farscry wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

I doubt Bill Nye went in thinking he'd change Ham's mind. But maybe he's changed the mind of someone else watching the debate. Maybe.

I've mentioned elsewhere (I forget which thread) that my sister was posting damn near every day some link to "Answers In Genesis" promoting the upcoming "debate", and I actually stated at one point in a public reply that the debate was pointless. Paraphrased, "it will be treated as essentially a sporting event, each side will cheer for their team, and at the end nothing new will come out of it, no one will be a clear winner because they're each playing by different rules, no one's mind will be changed by the debate, and both teams will think that their side clearly won."

Judging from what I've seen as a result, and from the forty or so minutes I could stomach watching it, my prediction was 100% accurate.

Yep. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find a Through the Looking Glass thread just like this one but where everyone is sure Ken Ham won, and why did he bother to debate with someone who has rejected God, anyway?

“If we accept Mr. Ham’s point of view ... that the Bible serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you, I want you to consider what that means,” Nye said. “It means that Mr. Ham’s word is to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find in your backyard in Kentucky.”

I think that was pretty powerful.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/2144...

This is what I was thinking through most of it.

I didn't watch the debate (and I won't watch it, because dudes like Ham make me just want to punch someone, anyone in the face) but my guess is that Bill Nye didn't want to go there because then it's no longer an attack on Young Earth Creationism, it's an attack on all of Christianity. You can reach YEC Christians with logic and reason. Not always, maybe not even often, but it can be done--I've seen it happen. But if you start out by telling them that YEC is bullsh*t in the same way that their faith is bullsh*t, as satisfying as that may be, you will not change anyone's mind about anything.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marb...

Mother Jones had an interesting take on things.

In the end, the most important thing about this debate, which drew dramatic attention, is that it was thoroughly disruptive of the evolution-creationism status quo. We've been in a rut in this battle for too long, with school boards and lawmakers continuing their stealth anti-evolution attacks (rarely admitting, as Ham so plainly did, that they're driven by religion) even as scientists wring their hands about American anti-intellectualism from the safety of their college towns.

Last night, in contrast, it all hung out. We saw what Young Earth creationists really, really think. They believe in vegetarian lions and an Earth younger than its oldest-living tree. And for most Americans, there's just no way that makes any sense.

The biggest revelation for me after watching that debate is the insidious attempt to redefine science into two distinct categories: Observational Science and Historical Science.
"Historical Science" allows fiction because you can't prove anything anyway, you weren't there.
"Observational Science" allows creationists to be functional in the field of science by allowing evidence and magic/miracles to fall into separate piles.
So the biggest job of the foundation, apparently, is casting doubt on the veracity of any evidence that contradicts their view by reclassifying it as falling into the realm of unprovable. Anything older than 6000 years was either faked, falsely dated, or a ruse by God to test our faith. Not really real science like the stuff in a lab, but fuzzy science that is based in belief rather than evidence. We believe that the Earth is older than 6000 years and we are unwilling to understand that by clinging to that belief we are using the same reasoning that enables creationists to believe in the miracles of God. Because only God can be trusted to give an accurate account of history, and he did by forcing us to write out Genesis on his behalf.

Ken Ham constantly relies on the absence of proof (which I suppose is faith) to make his point. The line of reasoning that "Because I feel your methods are inaccurate/incorrect proves that my point of view is correct" is not scientific method, and I think that is Bill Nye's entire argument. There is nothing wrong with challenging any theory, any method, any scientific belief. That's what scientists do every day. If you want to disprove it, though, you need evidence. Lack of evidence does not prove a theory. Whereas Bill says, look, we come up with theories and then we find evidence in the universe to prove or disprove them. That's how we discover things and come up with new ideas. Anything that stops us from doing that is bad.

At some point we reach the extent of our current knowledge of the universe. I believe when we reach that point it's okay to both say "That which falls into the unknown is god" and "We'll continue to question that which we don't know until we know more." Science does not disprove the existence of a god, and religion does not disprove science.

I can't wait to watch this. Saw something about it on the Verge this morning.

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:

Ken Ham constantly relies on the absence of proof (which I suppose is faith) to make his point. The line of reasoning that "Because I feel your methods are inaccurate/incorrect proves that my point of view is correct" is not scientific method, and I think that is Bill Nye's entire argument.

Although I haven't had time to watch, I have been to one of Ken Ham's lectures and read some of his books (~15 years ago). I used to be a big paleontology nut and consumed everything I could on the topic. His viewpoint used to be:

"We don't have enough evidence to prove the theory of evolution.
Therefore it is a theory, not fact.
Therefore we still have room for other theories based on different interpretations."

Which in general is not a bad interpretation of the scientific method. The real argument would be over the level of data required to prove something a human cannot observe first hand.

If he has indeed gone to your statement then it is a sad day, because it will be that much harder to move forward.

Farscry wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

I doubt Bill Nye went in thinking he'd change Ham's mind. But maybe he's changed the mind of someone else watching the debate. Maybe.

I've mentioned elsewhere (I forget which thread) that my sister was posting damn near every day some link to "Answers In Genesis" promoting the upcoming "debate", and I actually stated at one point in a public reply that the debate was pointless. Paraphrased, "it will be treated as essentially a sporting event, each side will cheer for their team, and at the end nothing new will come out of it, no one will be a clear winner because they're each playing by different rules, no one's mind will be changed by the debate, and both teams will think that their side clearly won."

Judging from what I've seen as a result, and from the forty or so minutes I could stomach watching it, my prediction was 100% accurate.

I understand the feeling of hopelessness you can get from watching the indoctrinated seemingly not budge, but Sam Harris notes that people rarely go through such paradigm shifts in public. And sometimes it takes time to break through all the way.

Maybe this debate wasn't good enough to be the tipping point for someone, but it's rarely a light-bulb moment from one end of the spectrum to the other. It's more of a gradual slide that causes permanent, valid shifts in thinking. If even one person reached the end of that slide, or one person just began it, because of that debate, I like to think it was at least somewhat worthwhile.

Then again, I'm of a mind that the venue, and the acknowledgement of someone so famous, were both major points against this debate.

Additionally, this has been floating around twitter.

I'd wonder what is Ham's timeframe for observational science? It sounded to me like it would have to be not more than the average human lifespan, because anything written down instantly becomes "historical". Observational would have to be limited to what can be directly experienced, so when the guy who invented the MRI dies, the process by which it was invented becomes historical science, which is up for interpretation, which means that MRI was invented by the grace of God, eventually. Just not right now.

What the hell is noetics?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

What the hell is noetics?

Even Wikipedia doesn't seem to know.

I feel sorry for how terribly their education systems have failed those people.

Paging LarryC.. paging LarryC

Pages