Wesley Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/science-guy-ready-to-debate-founder-of-creation-museum/ 99.9% of scientists worldwide accept it. A theory that has a greater body of evidence behind it than even the theory of gravity. And you probably think and hear about it more often than you realize, when you read news stories about super-bacteria, resistant to antibiotics. Darwin's 150-year-old theory could have been proven wrong time and again with advances made in genetics, biology, paleontology, and most recently, in understanding genome sequencing. Yet, evolution wins out every time, asserting a link of common descent amongst all creatures that ever lived. However, among the large and vocal group of evolution deniers (approximately one-third of Americans, according to a recent poll), is Ken Ham, the CEO of Answers in Genesis, which asserts that God created the entire universe in just six 24-hour days. Answers in Genesis, like other creationist organizations, produces educational materials for religious charter schools and parents who home school their children, emphasizing that the Earth is just 6,000 years old and people and dinosaurs co-existed – beliefs that echo inside their $27 million Creation Museum – where a debate will happen live tomorrow between Ham and popular science advocate ‘Bill Nye, the Science Guy'. The topic: ‘Is creationism (ie: the creation story of Genesis) a viable model of origins?' Although Nye is a mechanical engineer by profession, he has used his status as a TV show host to become a vocal advocate for science education, emphasizing that scientifically literate students are critical to a thriving, innovative economy. Although teaching creationism in public schools is illegal, many creationists have used citizen groups to intimidate textbook publishers to misrepresent evolution as a controversial theory among scientists, or to pass education bills that give teachers freedom from teaching the curriculum. Is debating Ham a good idea? Biologist Jerry Coyne says no, echoing a sentiment shared by Richard Dawkins, and science writer Tyler Francke (who believes evolutionary theory is compatible with religion): debating creationists gives them undeserved credibility. It pits speculative ideas against conclusions based on experimentation and peer review. Worse, purchasing tickets funds Ham's organization, regardless of who you root for. Debating in an auditorium before an audience is also not how scientists argue over theories. Audiences can be appealed to and manipulated. Still, there is some cause for optimism. Although Nye is not an expert in biology, he has the ability to explain complex ideas to ordinary people, in addition to his recognition as the science guy, and may have some positive influence over the crowd. You'll be able to watch the debate live, free of charge. That last link will take you here: http://debatelive.org/ Which will allow you to watch the debate for free, live (February 4 at 7 PM EST) Might be interesting to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Quick bump in case people missed this yesterday. This will be happening tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatsmrshem Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Thanks for the post, I got free time to kill and I always Loved Bill when i was a kid, I think I will watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 how did it go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 how did it go? Starts in 45 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_LiveFree_ Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I understand being polite. But Bill Nye is being soft. I don't know how productive it is to try and debate science with someone who completely rejects reality. It is amazing what childhood trauma can do to the mind. Ken Ham really believes what he's saying and really believes it is logical. He doesn't understand basic logic much less science. Maybe there is benefit in making these kinds of people look utterly foolish in front of young people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 I understand being polite. But Bill Nye is being soft. I don't know how productive it is to try and debate science with someone who completely rejects reality. It is amazing what childhood trauma can do to the mind. Ken Ham really believes what he's saying and really believes it is logical. He doesn't understand basic logic much less science. Maybe there is benefit in making these kinds of people look utterly foolish in front of young people. As I understand, Bill Nye's goal has always been to make science easy and accessible for everyone and to try to ignite a passion in them, with the idea that the future requires scientists and engineers to create the better future for America and the world. Thus, he is trying to be very cordial "soft" probably as a way to reach out to a handful of creationists who might be on the edge, likely realizing that Ken Ham and devoted creationists aren't worth changing very much. Ken Ham's main argument is that the past doesn't follow the rules of the present that we can observe, so both creationists and evolutionists are using faith. Which is very silly that somehow the past is this "other realm" in which science and evidence don't apply. I hope that someone was ignited with a passion for reason and science and that positive things came out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culain Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Ken Ham's main argument is that the past doesn't follow the rules of the present that we can observe, so both creationists and evolutionists are using faith. Which is very silly that somehow the past is this "other realm" in which science and evidence don't apply. The most telling part was when a question morality was brought up in the bible and Ken instantly jumped onto the "Out of Context" position saying that it "might" be just poetry, but of course we'll never know because it's in the past. If Ken is going to take this position then perhaps the Genesis story that he takes literally is also Out of Context and it may just be simple poetry. Then when he defends that, just tell him that his proof can't be proven because it occurred in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_LiveFree_ Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm still trying to figure out what Ken meant by "Observable Science" and "Historical Science". A traumatized mind can't help but compartmentalize the world around it. I think if any scientist or secularist is to engage in a formal televised debate with a believer, they should start of by defining some of these typical psychological defense mechanisms and then ask the audience to watch for them. If facts and logic about the "world out there" were enough to win this debate it would be over already. The only way to win is to play the man, not his cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culain Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Observable was what i believe Bill was using, or just plain science. Observing the world around in the moment to make predictive judgements. Historical science was just, take something in History such as the Bible and seek evidence to support it. Which was what Ken was using. Bill called him out on this over and over again in the debate saying that Ken's Historical science aka "The Bible" is useless because it lacks the ability to make future predictions, it's just theologians spending all their time trying to justify the logic in the bible instead of actually discovering logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireShield Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I understand being polite. But Bill Nye is being soft. I don't know how productive it is to try and debate science with someone who completely rejects reality. It is amazing what childhood trauma can do to the mind. Ken Ham really believes what he's saying and really believes it is logical. He doesn't understand basic logic much less science. Maybe there is benefit in making these kinds of people look utterly foolish in front of young people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUXQatryNw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlip Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 "Every picture of you is of when you were younger." -Mitch HedbergIsn't all science historical science once it has been observed? Admittedly I couldn't watch this whole thing, I didn't make it much past the opening statements. Ham is a so far out of touch with reality I just was not able to put myself through his fallacious arguments anymore. Feed Ham to Stef, Dawkins, or Hitchens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdub Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Here's a YouTube mirror of the entire debate for those who missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanceD Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUXQatryNw While I understand what he says is his goal there are many reasons why I don't think he will be able to achieve them. For example, I live in Tennessee among the Christians and many of my acquaintances mentioned they wanted to watch this debate but that they would only do so if they were able to without their children present. Because they didn't want their kids to get any funny ideas! Really all he is doing is lending some bit of credibility to this nonsense and may in fact be working against himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Really all he is doing is lending some bit of credibility to this nonsense and may in fact be working against himself. I agree. But I'm guessing the humongous paycheck he received probably says different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The most telling moment is when Ken Ham was asked what would change his mind about his position, and he spent two minutes saying "nothing". How about pointing out the contradictions in the order of events between Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2? (While http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/03/feedback-genesis-1-and-2 covers this, I think it's pretty weak to claim it was a Hebrew translation error.) How about pointing out that the church had to frequently vote on what accounts were Canon or not? Whatever, I guess it's all poetry, except when we feel it's not. Cherry-picking at its finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 For example, I live in Tennessee among the Christians and many of my acquaintances mentioned they wanted to watch this debate but that they would only do so if they were able to without their children present. Because they didn't want their kids to get any funny ideas! This is like a signed confession that what they espouse is not the truth. On the one hand, that's kind of cool. On the other hand, the fact that they would inflict it on their children just to fit in is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Dean Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Let's make a drinking game!! every time he says "you weren't there" take a drink when he makes a creepy reference to indoctrinating kids, take a drink when Bill gives the camera an exasperated look, take a drink when he makes an appeal to authority fallacy, take a drink when he commits the false dichotomy fallacy, take a drink OH! when he says something has been "hijacked by secularists" take a drink anyone got more? Edit: I got a few more, any time Ham says "There a book for that" take a drink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culain Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 "No, Mr. Ham I am not satisfied!" Bill Nye Whenever you share Bill's thoughts, take a drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathanm Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Some upcoming debates you won't want to miss: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpus mentium Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 For example, I live in Tennessee among the Christians and many of my acquaintances mentioned they wanted to watch this debate but that they would only do so if they were able to without their children present. Because they didn't want their kids to get any funny ideas! This is like a signed confession that what they espouse is not the truth. On the one hand, that's kind of cool. On the other hand, the fact that they would inflict it on their children just to fit in is terrible. What?! Where's their faith? I wonder how things might turn out in the future when these kids grow up and some (hopefully all) of them use this little thing called the internet to watch this debate that they found on FDR... At least if they end up like the ones who were raised religious and managed to shake it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireShield Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 My English class is focusing on the topic "the ridiculous," and we're going to be discussing and writing about this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmin Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Ken Ham's main argument is that the past doesn't follow the rules of the present that we can observe, so both creationists and evolutionists are using faith. If the past doesn't follow the rules of the present, then the future doesn't follow the rules of the present either. Interestingly enough, he uses English to express this argument - a language he has successfully used all his life. He is using past experience to argue against past experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts