Bill Nye agrees to "debate" Ken Ham

[Lagmonster]

...And at the Creation Science museum in Kentucky, no less. One story covering it is here.

So I use quotes because I don't expect this to be a debate at all. I expect Ken to pack his hall with The Faithful, ignore anything Bill says, and preach for as long as he can get away with it. There's a good reason why real scientists don't get involved debating religious fanatics - it's never an argument. One side wants to proselytize, and the other side wants to reason. You can't have a real discussion under those conditions. Worse, the topic is "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?", so right off the bat Nye's being asked to attack a religious position, and the subject itself is broad enough to leave Ken room to field claims that will require knowledge in a wide range of scientific disciplines in order to reply effectively.

I've seen seasoned creationists debate serious scientists before, and it's like watching a snake oil routine - they stack the crowd and bring showmanship and a lot of polish to their act. No matter how right the other guy is, he'll be made to look either awkward or boring. And you can bet your ass Ken will come out of this with at least one or two good video clips that he can cherry-pick to make it look like he stumped or flustered his opponent, which would be worth an otherwise sound intellectual ass-kicking for the PR it'll generate for him.

I hope Bill can bring his usual charm and clarity to the event, but as it stands Bill has little to gain and a lot to lose. Hell, Ken wins major legitimacy points just by getting Bill to show up.

[Ahriman238]

Sure the game is rigged, but have a little faith in Bill. He's been debating idiots for a while now.

And it's not like there isn't a large body of precedent for these exact arguments.

[Ahriman238]

Alright, having seen Ken Ham's rebuttal video I have a few questions about how someone can so misunderstand the world. Bill is an engineer, sure, he built planes for Boeing, sure. What does aviation have to do with evolution? An awful lot. See the flight of a plane was sort of, kind of, modeled on the flight on a bird, which came about through evolution. Oh, and scattering airplane parts randomly and hoping they'd magically come together into a useable shape has nothing to do with engineering or revolution.

Bill doesn't know what science is? How can you say that with a straight face?

Sigh, sharp divide between historical and observational science, "fossils don't come with labels or photos" drink two.

And hearing a creationist complain about scientists not teaching critical thinking and sheltering their kids from opposing worldviews is hilarious.

Yeah, the crowd may jeer and he may get some out-of-context video clips, but on that stage Bill Nye is going to eat this guy alive. The single point he made that I can't really dismiss out of hand for being counterfactual is that Bill won some award for humanism, and therefore has an agenda. I distrust ad hominem attacks on principle, particularly when the guy making them makes no other valid points, but does anyone know anything about this award? How do you even get a prizefor humanism?

[Kitsune]

The best tactic is literally to study Ken Ham videos and know exactly what to say.
That is how Ken Miller did it.

[Tribble]

So when creationists see an apple fall off a tree, do they believe that it's due to God's will? Do they verbally castrate anybody who suggests its due to gravity? After all, like evolution gravity is only a theory.

[Thanas]

I applaud Nye for trying.

[Simon_Jester]

So when creationists see an apple fall off a tree, do they believe that it's due to God's will? Do they verbally castrate anybody who suggests its due to gravity?

There was one noted Muslim theologian who did exactly that, although with a more learned and civilized overall approach. Cotton does not burn because it is in the nature of cotton to burn, he said; cotton burns because God wills that cotton burn.

If you think you live in a universe that runs on divine order, this is actually an important concept which distinguishes between, for example, the Greco-Roman pantheon and the stark monotheism of Christianity and Islam.
_____________________________

In most ancient religions, the deities revered by the average person were represented as... call them a cross between a superhero and a philosophical concept. Physically, they could take human (or other) form in specific places and act in ways much as we would imagine any other being of matter acting, only 'better:' bench-pressing a huge boulder, or being so insanely beautiful that people were driven to acts of madness, or having strange abilities like rendering themselves invisible.

Conceptually, they had a specific theological remit, areas they had control over.

So the Greek god Apollo was imagined as, more or less, a superhuman being who could nevertheless be understood in mortal terms in spite of his superhuman powers. He had affairs, he could speak to people as a human would speak, he could be tricked or thwarted. He was also imagined as a being whose supernatural powers had a specific, limited remit: prophecies, plagues, a few other things like that.

[There are probably Greek philosophers who would not have agreed with this; I'm trying to represent a general tone of thought here and am necessarily glossing over details]
_____________________________

By contrast, in the Abrahamic religions God is a unique being, who is not imagined as being some superhero lounging around on a cloud whom you could conceivably walk up to and shake the hand of. Nor is his theological remit limited: his powers are plenary, in that they are not only 'strong' and capable of doing anything, they are capable of doing everything; there is no conceivable power he does not have. There is no thing that he does not have power over, and no thing that he does not exercise power over.

To quote a guy who wrote an interesting book on this subject:

"...Mohammed wasn't talking about "this god" versus "that god." He wasn't saying "Believe in a god called Lah because He is the biggest, strongest god," nor even that Lah was the "only true god" and all the other ones were fake. One could entertain a notion like that and still think of God as some particular being with supernatural powers, maybe a creature who looked like Zeus, enjoyed immortality, could lift a hundred camels with one hand, and was the only one of its kind. That would still constitute a belief in one god. Mohammed was proposing something different and bigger. He was preaching that there is one God too all-encompassing and universal to be associated with any particular image, any particular attributes, any finite notion, any limit. There is only God and all the rest is God's creation: this was the message he was delivering..."

Now, Christianity complicates this picture, but the core concept still there.

So, when atheists imagine a god, and indeed when a lot of religious people imagine a god, they imagine "some particular being with supernatural powers," something like Thor or Apollo. But when certain stripes of very committed believers in the Abrahamic religions imagine a god, they imagine this abstract, all-encompassing entity, and everything else in the universe as being part of that entity's creation/plans/will.

And if you're a believer of the second kind, it is important to take for granted that nothing can possibly happen without the will of your God applying to it. That's an inevitable consequence of the relationship between God and the created universe. If it breaks down (if things happen without God willing that they happen) then that undermines the idea that God is infinite and all-powerful, because you can point to those things and say "well, this would happen if God were involved or not, so why is God so important?"

Reinforcing the idea that God is important is literally at the tippy-top of these people's brains.

[Tribble]

Thank you for the explanation. Upon reading it I realised that I'm not much better than they are. Despite my best efforts some part of my brain is still theistic - yes it's totally illogical and quite frankly stupid, but there's no point in denying that part of me wants to believe that there is the potential for some being out there that is greater (in some fashion) than we are. Of course if such a being existed would I, a mere 3 pounds of brain matter primarily composed of water, be able to even comprehend that it exists? At least that's the argument that I'm stuck with atm. Can anyone help out, this theistic side really bothers me...

Though I suppose at least my "faith" (for want of a better word) is parked at the door the moment it comes to actually trying to figure out how things work in the real world. I do understand the fact that saying "God did it" solves nothing, so I suppose that puts me above the intelligence of a rock lol.

[Terralthra]

Bill Nye won the 2010 Humanist of the Year award from the American Humanist Association.

The Humanist of the Year award was established in 1953 to recognize a person of national or international reputation who, through the application of humanist values, has made a significant contribution to the improvement of the human condition.

Selection of the awardee is based on research derived from biographical data, writings, studies, and contributions to humanity. Nominations are accepted from AHA members. The Awards Committee, with the approval of the Board, makes the selection. A bronze plate bearing an inscription is awarded at the Annual Conference.

Bill Nye, scientist, engineer, comedian, author, and inventor, is a man with a mission: to help foster a scientifically literate society. Nye is best known as the host of the PBS children's science show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," which won 18 Emmys in five years. He currently hosts "The 100 Greatest Discoveries" on the Science Channel and "The Eyes of Nye" on PBS, and has written five kids' books about science, including "Bill Nye's Great Big Book of Tiny Germs."

[Napoleon the Clown]

Thank you for the explanation. Upon reading it I realised that I'm not much better than they are. Despite my best efforts some part of my brain is still theistic - yes it's totally illogical and quite frankly stupid, but there's no point in denying that part of me wants to believe that there is the potential for some being out there that is greater (in some fashion) than we are. Of course if such a being existed would I, a mere 3 pounds of brain matter primarily composed of water, be able to even comprehend that it exists? At least that's the argument that I'm stuck with atm. Can anyone help out, this theistic side really bothers me...

Though I suppose at least my "faith" (for want of a better word) is parked at the door the moment it comes to actually trying to figure out how things work in the real world. I do understand the fact that saying "God did it" solves nothing, so I suppose that puts me above the intelligence of a rock lol.

Eh, there's really nothing wrong with thinking there may be some sort of being out there that has abilities beyond what we currently understand to be possible. It's about how you go about things. I'm a rather firm atheist, but if someone does have faith in some sort of "greater" being it doesn't even remotely bug me because it's really an inconsequential thing. The important part is you look for ways to explain how things work instead of just saying "goddidit."

[Esquire]

In most ancient religions, the deities revered by the average person were represented as... call them a cross between a superhero and a philosophical concept. Physically, they could take human (or other) form in specific places and act in ways much as we would imagine any other being of matter acting, only 'better:' bench-pressing a huge boulder, or being so insanely beautiful that people were driven to acts of madness, or having strange abilities like rendering themselves invisible.

Conceptually, they had a specific theological remit, areas they had control over.

So the Greek god Apollo was imagined as, more or less, a superhuman being who could nevertheless be understood in mortal terms in spite of his superhuman powers. He had affairs, he could speak to people as a human would speak, he could be tricked or thwarted. He was also imagined as a being whose supernatural powers had a specific, limited remit: prophecies, plagues, a few other things like that.

[There are probably Greek philosophers who would not have agreed with this; I'm trying to represent a general tone of thought here and am necessarily glossing over details]

As a member of the Right Honorable Brotherhood of Amateur Philosophers, I'm required to offer relevant information - The Platonic and Aristotelian traditions rejected this view on the grounds that such a being isn't really worth worshipping except out of fear*, which is in brief what Socrates was executed for. Then as now, many educated people didn't quite go along with the literal interpretation of their religion.

See Plato, The Republic, and Aristotle, Metaphysics

[Elaro]

As a member of the Right Honorable Brotherhood of Amateur Philosophers, I'm required to offer relevant information - The Platonic and Aristotelian traditions rejected this view on the grounds that such a being isn't really worth worshipping except out of fear*, which is in brief what Socrates was executed for. Then as now, many educated people didn't quite go along with the literal interpretation of their religion.

See Plato, The Republic, and Aristotle, Metaphysics

Didn't he get executed a) because he wanted to die and b) because some of his students overthrew the democracy in a bloody coup not once, but twice?

Sorry, I read "The Trial of Socrates", by I.F. Stone. What did I miss?

[Thanas]

Reality, judging by b)

[Elaro]

So I misremembered the number of times they overthrew the democracy.

"Athens had just come through a difficult period, where a Spartan-supported group, called the Thirty Tyrants had overturned the city's participatory democracy and sought to impose oligarchic rule. The fact that Critias, the leader of the Tyrants, was one of Socrates's pupils was not seen as a coincidence." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

My point is; he wasn't killed for religious reasons, he was killed because he was viewed as an enemy of democracy.

[Thanas]

You know how many were considered his pupils?

He was scapegoated because Athens lost and because he was inconvenient to powerful men. His refusal to show due deference to gods was part of that and yes, he was killed partly due to religious reasons, because by refusing deference to the gods he refused deference to the ideals of the state and the foundation of the state.

[Crossroads Inc.]

So....

Did anyone get to WATCH the "Debate" It was on yesterday.
Found the whole two plus hour debate online:

[Thanas]

Ken Ham is such a bad debater - he asks loaded questions, asks questions which demand more than the allotted time to answer and the whole concept of "historical" sciences are a personal insult to any historian.

[Crossroads Inc.]

My Personal favorite is where Hammey strght up admits that Nothing Bill Nye says will ever change his mind regarding creationism.
Which, if you think about it, is the single driving tenant behind Science, being open to admitting you might MIGHT be wrong.

[Thanas]

My favorite is when Ham starts to get bitchy at 1hour:25 after Nye eviscerates his philosophy and then starts to ramble about anecdotes.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So....

Did anyone get to WATCH the "Debate" It was on yesterday.

Nope. Decided that the only person who would possibly gain anything from this whole debacle was Ken Ham and his Creation "Museum," regardless of how well Bill Nye did at demolishing him.

And listening to NPR (the closest thing to unbiased journalism in the United States) on the way to work this morning, I think my suspicions were confirmed. The newscaster noted that the debate was hosted by the Creation "Museum," (thus cuing people into the fact that there is such a thing,) and the sound bytes they chose to play to recap the debate went as follows:

Bill Nye: "And we have <goes on to list the half of the periodic table> methods of dating that demonstarte the Earth is older than 6000 years."

Ken Ham: "All those dating methods are fallible. We have someone who was actually there as a witness, who told us how it was done ... the word of God."

All of that plays into Ken Ham's hands, because creationism is one big appeal to emotion and authority that can be easily presented as a series of insidious, easily-digested, talking points.

[Borgholio]

Yeah I don't really want to watch it. I have no doubt Bill could destroy this guy in a normal debate, but my experience in debating bible thumpers and tea-partiers is when they are confronted with logic and facts, they stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly.

Me: "Facts, sciences, logic, mathematics, reason..."

Them: "But...but...but...but...God did it! Yay, I win!"

[Channel72]

Ham is basically saying we can't be confident about anything that happened in the past since we haven't personally witnessed it. Except... for some reason, by reading "historical" accounts in the Bible, I guess. And he knows the Bible is trustworthy because ...

[Lagmonster]

Best tweet on the show came from Zach Weinersmith, with: "It must be nice to be Ken Ham. Every time he reloads a movie, there's a solid chance it'll be completely new to him."

[Gaidin]

I always figured Bill Nye's not there for the crowd anyway. He knows he's not getting an applause. He's there to fundamentally tear apart Ken Ham's "scientific" claims so people that are watching the debate from home and on youtube that don't know as much but aren't under the influence of the environment can see what's going on. None of this is really high level science remember, especially if spoken from a conceptual standpoint as you would want to for such a debate given it's not a class lecture. Pretty much everything Ken Ham depends on is stuff you can have a basic grasp by middle school if a school system really tried. If you're not under the emotional grasp of the environment, it's not that hard to be out of Ken Ham's grasp in this thing.

[Ayrix]

I always figured Bill Nye's not there for the crowd anyway. He knows he's not getting an applause.

Actually if it makes you feel any better, the crowd started chanting "Bill, Bill, Bill" after the debate. You can hear it on the Youtube video just before the sound cuts out.