Nye vs. Ham

[tmfr15]

Sorry for posting this late, but I didn't see it in the forum and, since I watched the entire debate online, decided to get a convo going about it.

 

The topic of the debate was.... Are Creationism mind sets viable for teaching science in school?

 

I think Nye won by demonstrating that science seeks answers while creationism finds satisfacion in answers from scripture.

 

When asked about several questions that science can't address, Nye basically said that science doesn't know but continues to search for answers. Ham basically said that he found the answers in the bible and was satisifed with that.

 

In order to do science, you have to observe everything, track everything and go where the evidence takes you. That's how you do science correctly. Nye said there were areas where science thought they had it right, notes that scientists thought the universe was slowing down post big bang then found it was speeding up and expanding faster instead. And they were Ok with changing their mind according to new information.

 

Ham seemed to think that there were some areas where no search was needed. There were places from an investigation perspective that he was not willing to go. And he expressed a reluctance to put away pre-conceptions and adjust to new information. Those stances simply do not work for scientific pursuits.

 

That's not to say creationist scientists can't do legit science. It just means that, at the end of the day, those creation scientists are likely to stop looking in accordance with religious convictions.

 

What did you guys think?

[zoogs]

I'm of the opinion that Nye loses by default by participating in a debate.

 

Science isn't a matter of opinion; it's not one where you look at both sides of the 'issue' and if you're a reasonable, rational person you take a moderate and respectful view somewhere. I'll refer to this 2002 essay which I posted previously: NYTimes: ESSAY; Odds are Stacked When Science Tries to Debate Pseudoscience. Sure Nye may have said some 'right' ish things, but what does that accomplish? Great, the scientific method lives on, at least among scientists, in this continual Great Debate^TM that can't be resolved (even though it is) but it's fun to talk about it now and again...?

 

It goes without saying that pseudoscience is a farce; that it doesn't stand up to rigor in a world of reason and logic, and that it is completely unsuited to make scientific assertions. The only outcome I see from the debate is framing the whole thing in, "Hey, well, there's two sides here. Let's hear out the experts from each, as unsettled as this whole thing is." It's the strategy of the illegitimate to affect legitimacy by assuming the same stage. It's not exactly the 12th century; you'd think the Enlightenment age would have raised everyone's level, but then not only is scientific literacy low world-wide, the scientific method itself seems to be up for interpretation.

 

I'm not familiar with the 'field', so to say, but I am rather skeptical about according 'creation scientists' the benefit of the doubt. By this I mean scientists who are researching 'creation stuff'. There's a little too much motivation to see and find exactly what you want to. As for creationists who also happen to be brilliant scientists or mathematicians, of that I have no doubt. There's nothing impossible about that.

[tmfr15]

I think Nye did a good job of pointing out why science differs from what Ham is talking about.

 

For instance, Ham said there is a difference between historical science and observational science. Nye said no such difference exsists in the scientific community.

 

Nye said that science is something that everybody can do. They can make observations. They can gather data. They can come to conclusions and repeat tests to add more teeth to their findings.

 

Ham's interpretations of the bible, Nye noted, must be taken on their merit without investigation and are beyond examination.

 

I think having disucusions like these are good. Some people in the room, no doubt, began to wonder why Ham's positions were making less and less sense to them.

 

That's good.

[Junior]

I'm of the opinion that Nye loses by default by participating in a debate.

 

Science isn't a matter of opinion; it's not one where you look at both sides of the 'issue' and if you're a reasonable, rational person you take a moderate and respectful view somewhere. I'll refer to this 2002 essay which I posted previously: NYTimes: ESSAY; Odds are Stacked When Science Tries to Debate Pseudoscience. Sure Nye may have said some 'right' ish things, but what does that accomplish? Great, the scientific method lives on, at least among scientists, in this continual Great Debate^TM that can't be resolved (even though it is) but it's fun to talk about it now and again...?

 

It goes without saying that pseudoscience is a farce; that it doesn't stand up to rigor in a world of reason and logic, and that it is completely unsuited to make scientific assertions. The only outcome I see from the debate is framing the whole thing in, "Hey, well, there's two sides here. Let's hear out the experts from each, as unsettled as this whole thing is." It's the strategy of the illegitimate to affect legitimacy by assuming the same stage. It's not exactly the 12th century; you'd think the Enlightenment age would have raised everyone's level, but then not only is scientific literacy low world-wide, the scientific method itself seems to be up for interpretation.

 

I'm not familiar with the 'field', so to say, but I am rather skeptical about according 'creation scientists' the benefit of the doubt. By this I mean scientists who are researching 'creation stuff'. There's a little too much motivation to see and find exactly what you want to. As for creationists who also happen to be brilliant scientists or mathematicians, of that I have no doubt. There's nothing impossible about that.

 

While I'm inclined to agree with you, I read the Bad Astronomy blog the other day and he brought up your points and made some reasonable counterpoints to it.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/05/creationism_debate_should_we_engage_anti_science.html

 

Last night, science advocate Bill Nye “debated” with creationist Ken Ham, the man who runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I was torn about the event; I think it’s important that science get its advocacy, but I also worry that by even showing up to such a thing, Nye would elevate the idea of creationism as something worth debating.

 

 

But I’ve thought about it, and here’s the important thing to remember: Roughly half the population of America does believe in some form of creationism or another. Half. Given that creationism is provably wrong, and science has enjoyed huge overwhelming success over the years, something is clearly broken in our country.

 

[The Dude]

 

[The Dude]

That's kind of how I feel about it, Junior. It's shouldn't be necessary, but it is, sadly.

[zoogs]

Hm. I agree that the statistics are not good -- I guess I just don't see this as something that helps move it in the right direction? While a lot of people agree with what Bill Nye says, those people already agreed to begin with. Is there any evidence to suggest that it persuades those who don't?

 

I suppose I don't have evidence either, to suggest that the world is 'increasingly' treating settled science as matters of personal or political opinion...although that's grounded in the assumption that people aren't evaluating this on logical reasoning, which I kinda think is a more reasonable assumption. I found the article I was thinking of previously regarding the tactics employed by creationists based on what they learned from the media coverage of the Scopes trial:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scopes-creationism-education/

 

Under the guise of "academic freedom" creationists are co-opting some old heroes of the fight to teach evolution in the classroom for their anti-science campaign

[JJ Husker]

I don't have much to add but I do feel the need to point out that the ideas of creationism and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. I'm a fairly smart guy, I have a pretty good grasp of science, big bang theory (the TV show too...), evolution, etc. and I have yet to have anyone prove to me that all of the scientific evidence equates to there being no creator. I do acknowledge that some peoples/religions/organizations take on creationism is debunked by science extremely clearly. To me, that just means their idea of creation is flawed (too literal etc.), not that it is impossible. Also, science has not yet settled the question beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO there is plenty of room to believe substantially all of the science that exists and can be proven and to also believe an all powerful creator was the architect. The real problem is, there is no way to prove or disprove God with science, and it is futile and foolish to try to disprove science using faith, beliefs, and 2000 year old books.

 

Edit- I probably need to specify that I did not watch the debate and have no idea what Ham's position in this deal is/was. My comments were general in nature and only generally related to the discussion at hand. I'm pretty sure I do not and would not agree with any "young earth" type of argument or with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

[Landlord]

I don't have much to add but I do feel the need to point out that the ideas of creationism and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. I'm a fairly smart guy, I have a pretty good grasp of science, big bang theory (the TV show too...), evolution, etc. and I have yet to have anyone prove to me that all of the scientific evidence equates to there being no creator. I do acknowledge that some peoples/religions/organizations take on creationism is debunked by science extremely clearly. To me, that just means their idea of creation is flawed (too literal etc.), not that it is impossible. Also, science has not yet settled the question beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO there is plenty of room to believe substantially all of the science that exists and can be proven and to also believe an all powerful creator was the architect. The real problem is, there is no way to prove or disprove God with science, and it is futile and foolish to try to disprove science using faith, beliefs, and 2000 year old books.

 

 

You're defining creationism differently than Ken Ham (and everyone else in this thread), which specifically refers to anti-evolution young-earth-creationism.

 

I don't really have a ton to add. I've made different comments in different areas, but my only two observations are:

 

A) Ken Ham is a bit of an idiot when it comes to science, but he is a well-oiled apologetics war machine. He's got all kinds of nifty little tactics and tricks to support his cause. Bill Nye is the better brain, but not the better debater, and if he would have gone in with a more prepared approach he could have absolutely destroyed Ham.

 

B) Ham didn't even want to debate science. More or less what it came down to was a debate on ethics. Nowhere was that more evident than his powerpoint slide showing two separate foundations of "man" and "God", with the former leading to moral relativism, euthanasia and killing babies while the latter leads to moral truth, the sanctity of marriage and life and etc. An absurd point to make in that environment.

[krill]

Even if only 1% of the voting age population believes in some form of Ham's young earth argument, and feels the need to inject their belief into public schooling, that's still 2.4 million people that can punch well above their 1% minority with money and influencing school boards in areas where they are more concentrated.

 

The fact that such extreme minorities can create the appearance of a real debate and lack of consensus is fascinating to me. You would think that with the vast quantities of information available quickly and easily with the Internet such ideas would quickly be extinguished, yet the opposite seems to happen with all sorts of crazy ideas that become reinforced.

[ZRod]

After the first 15 minutes there was no point in debating anymore. Ham's logic was you weren't there so you don't know. There is no possible way to debate that. If you're going to throw all logic out the window and say that the laws of the universe don't apply if you weren't there then the debate is over at that point. All I would have to say is that god is one hell of an architect, physicist, biologist engineer, and construction manager because that was an awful lot he got done in 6 days. Just placing light sources and then placing their photons across the universe is an unfathomable task in and of itself, especially considering it must travel billions of light years to propagate on it's own.

[Husker_x]

The part of the debate where Ham admitted that he was unpersuadable on the topic of his faith was the knockout blow. You couldn't have scripted a more effective contrast. On the one hand you have Nye who cares about evidence and the truth, and on the other you have Ham, a religious charlatan with his fingers wedged in his ears. That moment alone was worth the trouble. I understand why most people of pedigree wouldn't waste their time debating creationists on a settled issue, especially when all creationism in whatever form amounts to is an appeal to magic to explain the natural world. However, I don't think it's that simple to say that none of the three million people streaming the debate (or the millions more who will stream it later) will have some kind of change in their views. Lots of ex-religious people credit debates as key moments in their deconversion.

[sd'sker]

Lots of ex-religious people credit debates as key moments in their deconversion.

i've always blamed nietzsche.

[strigori]

And while Nye had no hope of changing the minds of Ham, or many other adults who have long ago let their brains rot away, something of this nature, and Nye's popularity may well make it to the youth who are still forming ideas, and willing to change. Every person who breaks away from the type of brain washing Ham and his ilk have done, is a victory in and of itself.

[carlfense]