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.
Tally: Antagonizing - 11 Bad/poorly worded questions - 4 Legitimate questions - 8 Note* I counted #8 in two categories. What does everyone think of this?
I don't see why they should all have to be questions.
Respecting the views of woefully ignorant and/or misinformed people is not easy for many people, so I'm not really surprised by these numbers. I would argue that #20 also has a legitimate question embedded in the mockery.
Here is where Creationism starts to become a problem.
"Creationists are on the march. In four states, there are proposed laws seeking to restrict âcontroversialâ teaching about science and allowing parents to pull their children from lessons about evolution.
In the aftermath of Tuesdayâs debate between Bill Nye, âthe Science Guyâ and Ken Ham, the founder of Kentuckyâs Creation Museum over evolution, more attention has been drawn to the ongoing attempts of creationists to reverse ground lost since the Scopes Trial and return to the chronology of the world established by Bishop James Ussher in the 17th century which firmly placed the Earthâs creation on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC...." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/06/could-creationism-become-law.html
"Let's combat pseudo-controversial issues by removing my child from a science classroom and further indoctrinate him into not being a scientifically-literate taxpayer."
Goddammit. Just goddammit. It's just a really sad, hard thing. Michio Kaku was not kidding.
What they seem to be forgetting is, in order to properly discuss something, you need to be informed of what you are debating about. This in itself implies that evolution should be taught anyway. But that's not what creationists want, creationists just want a platform to bring up their arguments and misrepresent what they consider "controversial". That's like saying gravity is controversial, let's 'discuss' this compared to the Flying Spaghetti Monster explanation. And of course, accepting the bills with the exact wording used in the link above is basically admitting what the creationists are saying, it means evolution is officially considered controversial by the law. This can not be.
These people want to minimize exposure to this particular theory because they recognize that it does make sense. They are trying to protect their children from what they believe is a harmful misconception. Because they are uneducated, themselves, they have no hope of combatting it, so their only resort is to avoid and ignore it. Those featured in Ham's PhD Parade were fortunate enough to escape the ignorance loop, but not before the mythology became hardwired into them.
In a way, it is understandable, but no less disappointing.
Those featured in Ham's PhD Parade were fortunate enough to escape the ignorance loop
That might not be the case. I'm do remember if the last guy going on about the e.coli experiment was a biologist or not but the rest of the lot weren't, as such it's still quite possible for those PhDs to still be quite ignorant on the subject matter.
Where are these chicks in the link posted and why aren't they in Indiana... o-o
Also in the link, not sure if I enjoyed some of the responses given. I get that some of these were to be a stark reflection of some of the religious questions asked (which could have been fruitful in some ways), but who could honestly be insightful enough to figure that out the first time and not instead "wow, look at this shallow response, these are the Atheists who disagree with us?"? They had an opportunity to give a mindful question to try and dig deep into a religious person's perspective, and I'm glad some did, but the rest decided to take the "look at what you did, I can do that too!" route.
The biologist he had, Dr. Andrew Fabich, did state how he goes into his studies "with a Creationist mind set".
Well this is interesting about where the guy teaches.
"Biology
Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism as an explanation for the appearance of life on earth. The university works with young Earth creationist organizations including Answers in Genesis. In biology classes students are taught both creationism and evolution and that creationism offers a better explanation of biological diversity than evolution. In October, 2006 the university published an advertisement in The Chronicle of Higher Education in an attempt to recruit staff to its biology department. The advertisement stated that the university was "seeking faculty who can demonstrate a personal faith commitment to its evangelical Christian purpose" and specified that "compatibility with a young-earth creationist philosophy [is] required."
In the same month, prominent biologist Richard Dawkins was quoted saying the following about Liberty University: "If it's really true that the museum at Liberty University has dinosaur fossils which are labeled as being 3,000 years old, then that is an educational disgrace. It is debauching the whole idea of a university, and I would strongly encourage any members of Liberty University who may be here, to leave and go to a proper university." In December, 1991 Creation reported, Arlton C. Murray "excavated a dinosaur for Liberty Universityâs museum", which proclaimed "this dinosaur was the first of its kind in any creationist museum."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University#Biology
Oh man. Liberty University. A tier-seven university? A place where inspectors declared it a non-credible college? Where Bill Maher jokingly implied that it's for people who failed to get into the University of Phoenix? XD
