Bill Nye vs. Creationism: Watch now!

Debating the Creation Museum guy on NPR, clicky!

Creationism-man is certainly good at throwing out tons of barely-connected bullshit.

I can’t connect to it from here. Is he shooting out things like “The Golden Ratio is proof of a divine plan” or some such BS like that?

Another pointless debate that will change no one’s mind. Creationist doctrine is the product of faith, not reason, and even if Nye crushes this debate, its adherents won’t be swayed.

That creationism is religion and not science needs to be made crystal clear at every opportunity. That was the key point in keeping creationism out of the Dover schools.

While it’s true that you won’t sway the core adherents of any form of extreme bullshit, it still needs to be debated, or the bullshit wins by default. There are always people in the middle on every topic, whether it’s creationism or the tea party. While you’re not going to convince the die-hards, you will speak to people who are neither adherents nor well versed enough in the topic to know it’s bullshit. Hence these debates are not pointless.

True enough. I even believe in some kind of cosmic power, though whether it has noodly appendages or a grey beard is beyond my understanding. I’m just not sure how people can suggest that anything resembling religion belongs in a science classroom with a sense of integrity. It’s simply un-science. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, but that it should be discussed in classes about religion, history, poli sci, sociology, or anthropology and not those involving test tubes and calculators.

edit - Now that I think on it a bit more, I wonder if the confusion comes from when people do bring science into those “other” classrooms and therefore mistakenly think it’s a two-way street. Science can be used as a tool in those subjects, but it’s not like anything found in those other subjects is going to impact radioactive decay, red shifts, or quantum mechanics. You could argue they’d help provide the context surrounding the development of various theories, but then you’re right back to those original subjects.

I don’t think there’s anyone who’s a creationist that isn’t a diehard. Certainly the dozens I’ve known personally were. Anyone “in the middle” who can be swayed by a rational debate should gravitate towards the evolution side without any push or prompt, since reason points in only one direction on this issue.

Put it this way: I’ve never known anyone who abandoned creationism without also abandoning their faith, and I’ve never known anyone who adopted it without also becoming fundamentalist. A debate is highly unlikely to cause either outcome. And I speak as someone raised by fundamentalists who was surrounded by them until my late teens.

Frankly, I think debating with creationists gives them credibility and air time that they don’t deserve but from which they benefit massively. “See?” they say. “Our views merit serious consideration.” Bored indifference and/or contempt are better.

This is so frustrating, the stream just keeps dying and dying. I should have waited until tomorrow – I’m wasting my time hitting refresh.

If they had no existing traction, I’d agree. No one wastes time debating with flat Earthers. Yet in the US, it’s 46% of the population who believe in Creationism. They already have credibility and air time. Are all 46% die-hard fanatics?

Based on my own personal sampling of creationists, yes. Your results may vary, etc. etc.

I was pretty disappointed, Bill just doesn’t have the killer instinct for this sort of thing. Maybe I’m delusional but I could have twisted a dozen things Ham said around on him so that he floundered. Nye relied far too much on appeals to commerce, of all things, rather than shoring up the inapproachable logic of science.

Really must side with Markell on this one; they’re all full-on loony. Between this debate and the Coke “debacle,” I’ve had the chance to learn just how many of my old high school buddies on Facebook have slipped into delicious racist fundamentalism this year.

Every time Ken Ham says his own name I could swear he is saying “canned ham”

Now I know I’ll have to watch the whole thing.

And what I’ve always found ironic is that the same segment of the population that’s staunchly Creationist is also adamantly social-Darwinian and devoid of anything resembling Christian charity. (Though it’s worthy debate whether “WORK HARDER AND YOU’LL GET AHEAD” is more Lamarckian than Darwinian, but that’s pointless if you make sure that the losers don’t survive, but here I go on a tangent again.)

I think Ken Ham basically outs religion as selfish wishful thinking when he says he wouldnt understand what would be the point of inquiry and acheivement if we don’t live forever in the kingdom of god after death.

This was totally weird. They both underperformed and relied on very strange arguments. Why did Bill keep talking about making commercial products? It was totally bizarre to watch. I did find some of the comments from both Bill and Ken to be pretty funny, though.

I think bill Nye raised plenty of good points and used actual evidence whereas Ken Ham pretty much just fell back on “the bible says so”. I think Bill Nye recognizes that most people arent really great at evaluating evidence vs hearsay, so he underlines his argument with the appeal to the cheap seats.

Which could easily be rephrased to say “science debated religion”.

All these mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, etc, look they’re all based on absurd assumptions. I might even be on board if the book was the Lord of the Rings, hell if I want to believe in fantasy that’s the kind of fantasy I want.

woah CBS frames this debate as Bill Nye defends evolution in Kentucky debate

Really, science needs to be defended against a leap of faith.