This will be your chance to discuss the debate as it happens. At the time I'm posting this the debate will start soon. Here is a link to where you can see it. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
There have been some issues raised about Nye taking on this debate. Feel free to express your views on that point as well.
Also, let me just make this clear: I'm not trying to equate science to religion. I'm simply wondering: If you yourself are not a scientist specializing in evolutionary biology, are you not just placing faith in the scientists who do?
Speaking of flood...he should have mentioned how there is nowhere near enough water on Earth for a worldwide flood
Anyone half literate in science could spend hours talking about how absurd Noah's flood is. It would be neigh impossible to come up with a more ridiculous, impossible, utterly falsifiable claim. Every single detail in that story can be used to disprove its validity, whether physical proof, logical proof, philosophical proof, or just realizing that feeding thousands of animals on a huge boat for a year that wouldn't even hold all the animals is reason enough to immediately dismiss the entire story.
I'm going to just copy and paste one of my Facebook posts discussing my thoughts on the debate.
I felt Bill missed quite a few opportunities. For example, Bill didn't explain to the audience that there's no such division as "observational" and "historical" science. It's all just "science", and whether you're looking into the present or the past, the same scientific method is used.
I also felt Bill avoided decimating certain questions because he wanted to avoid isolating himself completely from the creationists watching. For example, he didn't say "The Bible can't be used as a source of information". That would have turned all the creationists off in an instant. He said, "The bible has been translated numerous times, how do you know it was interpreted correctly?" This argument will be easier for creationists to swallow. They aren't being pressed to doubt the Bible, but rather the interpretation.
Bill played it very smart, and he knew he had to be careful with how he countered the Bible. I enjoyed his response to the unknown questions. Generally when you say, "I don't know", theists will say, "CHECKMATE! If you don't know then you don't have an answer. I do, therefore I'm right." But Bill turned it around and said, "You find the answer." This turned the burden of proof around in a very subtle manner. That was absolutely brilliant.
I thought the Q&A would be fixed against Bill Nye. But it didn't appear that way at all. One of the questions had Ken genuinely stumped for a few seconds.
Overall, I'm pleasantly surprised. Ken made some horrible arguments and danced around the questions, sure, but he didn't do nearly as poorly as I expected. I was expecting him to use more asinine arguments commonly spewed by the Hovinds, Ray Comfort, and Kirk Cameron.
... Is it sad that I'm so familiar with these creationists and their arguments?
Bill said he wanted to introduce science to those being shielded by it. And even though he didn't always make the best arguments, he made sure to focus on the actual science. He didn't let himself get side tracked by all of Ken's red herrings.
this is another thing that I was about to post on fb but didn't
I think people view evolution as something that has to happen a specific way and that it has an agenda.... Or maybe I'm just different and it should say things how I see them. It's like how when people take the name of "Global Warming" and assume that it's only referring to the climate warming... when in reality the truth says climate extremes are going to become more prevalent. It doesn't technically have to be survival of the fittest. It doesn't have to be a point mutation here or a point mutation there. It doesn't have to be explained as random either. The only thing necessary is that the genetic code has to be altered in someway and that alteration has to lead towards some expressional change. We can alter genomes of E. Coli so that what once didn't glow under UV light will now glow under UV light and all the progeny from then on will continue to do so. The whole genus, order, phylum, species thing is just our way of organizing the data so as to make our classification make more sense. Evolution is change of the genome, but we only truly appreciate it once two types of fertile creatures whose ancestors could breed together can no longer interbreed. You can irradiate flies so that the winged parents give rise to wingless progeny and from then on they'll all be wingless. ...that sounds like a gain or loss of fx to me.
Evolution at its purest only says that change can occur. It has no other agenda. After you've acquired enough mutation a visible difference from the previous stock becomes noticeable. I don't care how many times you rearrange a wolf's genome... you're not going to get a pomeranian. Things had to blend together and things had to randomly present themselves when they hadn't been there ever previously. We can demonstrate that with vaccines that revert back to the wild type from how we've altered them to be harmless. It's only one base pair in some instances... We can also demonstrate the same things with cancer cells and fidelity rates of the enzymes of replication
So whether it is Divinely, Extraterrestrially, or only randomly inspired/driven the changes occur, and that's all that matters. The action of mutation existing says nothing about there being or there not being a driving force behind it. Maybe when God said he created creatures that have stayed the same he meant he created evolving creatures that have kept on evolving! If they all turned into ligers then they wouldn't be able to evolve b/c they'd be infertile... and maybe he created a world that looks old with a lot of geological/paleological backstory and started evolution 6000 years ago. If genetic engineering is possible and the process of DNA replication can make mistakes, then the process of evolution exists. You can't really test what by definition says "leave me alone, I don't want to be tested."... all you can really say is "that's stupid and not believable, so I don't believe it (actually you can say whatever you want)
My favorite moment in undergrad at ___ was when a guy sitting with me at lunch told me "You know you really can't see things with microscopes and all of those tools you use in the lab don't really give reliable data/information (or data at all), right?" I know plenty of people that aren't atheist or agnostic that get mad over comments like that. You don't have to be in either of those two camps to recognize that microscopes can see really tiny things!!?!/!/1?1 Most of them somehow acknowledge DNA, but they can't fathom the differences in how mutation and the bottleneck effect both work.
i spoke to some points that were brought up about aliens and other random things that I didn't reference here for everyone to see, but it stands by itself regardless ( I also did some last second tweaking so things might not flow as well since I add things as they come to me)
but these are my own thoughts... I'm sure there are evolutionists that would rather I not speak for them, so I won't claim to
Hm, I don't think this is totally analogous. Obviously, if I want to legally own the bridge, I'm not just gonna give away money willy-nilly to someone who claims they can sell it. It's more like someone who has fake documentation vs. someone who has valid documentation--and it's difficult to tell which is legitimate.
It is a good analogy as we can evaluate that evidence for ourselves. Someone presenting a fake we can evaluate that for fraud independently of what the guy says. Same with the scientist.
I implied this when referring to your analogy, but the question isn't simply a claim vs. a claim with evidence. Really, it's more like: Why believe take the word of scientists when you cannot replicate their experiments? Why accept the evidence, the data, when they could be made up?
There are checks and balances in science that screen out the made up stuff. Or put another way science is self correcting. This again goes back to the replication of the experiments and the ability to review the presented material for ourselves. Using my math analogy again, if you just make stuff up to get your answer in math anyone can review that and see something isn't right. So it isn't required that we just take their word for it.
I'm simply wondering: If you yourself are not a scientist specializing in evolutionary biology, are you not just placing faith in the scientists who do?
No, I will even take my argument one further in that there are more mundane small scale experiments that the average not scientist can run in many of these fields.
Let's take for instance the scientific claim of how geological layers form. That is one layer forms then after a while a second layer and so on. Versus the creationist model that it happened all at once. Now I'm guessing you're not a geologist but there is something you can do at home that can completely independently provide you with your own model that you can then compare to the real world.
First take two jars of the same size. (I think large pickle jars would work well) Now fill one with a bunch of sediment and water pretty much all the way and just let it sit and dry out. Your first jar should now be complete for this comparative model. The second jar do the same but only fill a little bit, say a tenth of the way and also let that one sit and dry out. Once the second jar has dried out repeat the step you took on it by filling it up just a tenth or so of the way and let it dry. Continue doing this until the second jar is as full as the first. Now we have our two models for comparison to the real world. If you don't live near the Grand Canyon or other like place you can use Google to pull images of such locations up displaying the layering there. Look at the layers in the real world example and the layers in your two jars, which of your two jars looks more like what you're seeing in the real world?
No appeal to anyone need apply.
For example, Bill didn't explain to the audience that there's no such division as "observational" and "historical" science.
Actually he did state that in his opening remarks.
Ham apparently labours under several assumptions, such as: 1 the truth is quantified and measured in pHDs 2 the laws of logic/nature and the scientific method are both intrinsic and specific to the "Christian world view" 3 logic is a substance that has to be created in order to function 4 "observational science" applies to things that cannot possibly have been observed, provided that someone was around to not observe them 5 any false statement must be based entirely on false premises 6 you can draw an arbitrary dividing line between any two applications of the same process and turn it into two separate processes 7 any fairy tale can be a valid science if nobody was around to prove it didn't happen 8 all cosmological, geological, and archaeological theory is based purely on speculation, because they cannot have been observed by any living person, but the conjuration of the universe a few thousand years ago as described in the Bible is not.
I stopped watching after the two hour mark; any more BS and I'd undergo toxic shock.
Another question for you all. Do you feel you learned something from this debate. If so, what was it?
To evade a gish gallop at all costs.
For example, Bill didn't explain to the audience that there's no such division as "observational" and "historical" science. It's all just "science", and whether you're looking into the present or the past, the same scientific method is used.
Didn't he say that at the start about CSI?
I was expecting him to use more asinine arguments commonly spewed by the Hovinds, Ray Comfort, and Kirk Cameron.
It would've been hilarious if Ham took out a banana.
1 the truth is quantified and measured in pHDs
And only the ones that agree with you. All others are corrupt.
It's funny that at 41:15 Ham shows the "dog kind" model as supporting evidence for the flood, but ignores the point that it represents hundreds of thousands of years.
It's funny that at 41:15 Ham shows the "dog kind" model as supporting evidence for the flood, but ignores the point that it represents hundreds of thousands of years.
Or that it is an evolution we have observed..given that we have helped guide it
but then he would use the watchmaker argument..so blah
I stopped watching after the two hour mark; any more BS and I'd undergo toxic shock.
It was interesting nerveless seeing two very talented people argue a point. Some points Ken Ham brings up does in turn bring up bile to my mouth but nerveless I think he might be better at just plain arguing a point then Bill. Must respect to both though.
Though one point that Bill brought up that I disagreed with. Was that scientists would open you with open arms. If you follow Thomas Kuhn's paradigm theory you would only expect that to happen if you are doing research in the area of "normal science" but if you are on the boundaries proposing a new paradigm you are going to struggle. Contrary to how much we would like to think the scientific culture is purely rational and logical it is not. There are non rational pressures and sociological problems in academia.
Also I found their definitions of science (especially Ken Ham's) not satisfactory. I've always seen science as something that is based on the belief that the universe is deterministic (seems to be) and that based on that assumption you build the idea of rationalism, empiricism and falsifiability as being the bases of science itself. Ken Ham's theories fail both empiricism and falsifiability and only go along with rationalism which is not enough for good science therefore not science at all.
Talented? I gave up on them very quickly. Maybe because it's because when I have my scientist hat on I'm used to seeing evidence manipulated, and I didn't find that either of them structured their arguments well. They were both too busy poking each other and not doing what scientists are meant to do: collecting evidence from a controlled environment and then drawing logical conclusions from their findings.
Some points Ken Ham brings up does in turn bring up bile to my mouth but nerveless I think he might be better at just plain arguing a point then Bill.
Ham is actually a pretty good public speaker, I'll have to give him credit.
But that's also the issue, he is a good speaker. He knows how to talk and he knows how to talk to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about. People that don't know much about evolution or how to analyze evidence could easily confuse what Ham is saying as something he is very knowledgeable on.
Also I found their definitions of science (especially Ken Ham's) not satisfactory.
Unless he revised the "definitions" he gave at the beginning, Ham didn't actually define science or evolution. Rather than lay down a sound semantic foundation for the debate, he used the "definition of relevant terms" as an excuse to poison the well in his opening statement.
It's always funny when someone who accepts an irrational, unverifiable, and self-contradicting mythology as a verbatim account of historical fact tells you that you've been indoctrinated.
I've always seen science as something that is based on the belief that the universe is deterministic (seems to be) and that based on that assumption you build the idea of rationalism, empiricism and falsifiability as being the bases of science itself. Ken Ham's theories fail both empiricism and falsifiability and only go along with rationalism which is not enough for good science therefore not science at all.
Determinism is not an assumption; it is a necessity. Of what I witnessed, Ham's propositions are not theories, and not rational.
He knows how to talk and he knows how to talk to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about
It was scary on how logical some of his points where at the time. He is confident that he is right and he has been sharpening his anti-evolution knives for a while.
Talented?
Talking about general science and debating it.
collecting evidence from a controlled environment and then drawing logical conclusions from their findings.
If you can't agree on a paradigm you are going to have difficulty especially if one person is not doing real science. Also that person will not change his mind based on deep emotional attachments to stated paradigm.
Ham didn't actually define science or evolution
He actually defined science but as a English major which is not satisfactory to a scientist.
the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
The above was his foundation of his historical science that there are different ways of "knowing". I'm sure you can all agree that the stated definition while true is extremely lacking and false based on completeness.
Determinism is not an assumption; it is a necessity.
Not disagreeing.
Ham's propositions are not theories, and not rational.
True, by the strict definition they are not but when taken from the context of the bible being the source of knowledge they do, sadly.
Though one point that Bill brought up that I disagreed with. Was that scientists would open you with open arms. If you follow Thomas Kuhn's paradigm theory you would only expect that to happen if you are doing research in the area of "normal science" but if you are on the boundaries proposing a new paradigm you are going to struggle. Contrary to how much we would like to think the scientific culture is purely rational and logical it is not. There are non rational pressures and sociological problems in academia.
While there is inevitably going to be some bias that doesn't get weeded out right away what Bill said was true. At least as the end product of science goes.
They were both too busy poking each other and not doing what scientists are meant to do: collecting evidence from a controlled environment and then drawing logical conclusions from their findings.
Neither of them are actually scientists when you get down to it. Ken Ham is a minister and Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer and science educator.
