Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree he could have given a better response- but I think the YEC audience would have just dismissed it anyway as the whole 'dating methods' topic has been poisoned by YEC pseudoscience claims for too long. I think they are too used to switching their brains off and going "lah-lah-lah I can't hear you"
While it occurred to me that a quick response to the log in rock would have been better, the more I think about it, the more Nye would have got totally bogged down trying to get to the bottom of that claim. And even then it would only lead onto objections to uniformitarian views of Isotope decay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I saw the summary clips on one of the morning "news" shows and it does look like it came off better than one would expect. They quoted some science organization's opinion that creationism shouldn't be dignified with debate, but Nye's real objective is science literacy and education and I don't think he saw this as anything but a tool to promote science and its importance in our lives. Perhaps his focus not being on disproving creationism per se was the key to his success. Rather, it seems he was simply making a confident presentation about how useful and important science is in explaining the natural world. By contrast, all the clips of Ham seemed to be just themes and variations on, "you're not going to convince me that the word of god is not true".
Perhaps I'll have time to watch the whole thing later today.
It is understandable that some feel that it is giving creationism credibility by debating, but we have been here before with Daniken's gods from outer space. Ignoring that and letting its claims go unconsented created a massive nonscience cult -problem that we are still struggling with today, and which has been easily lifted by creationists in their efforts to discredit everything that science teaches about the ancient earth and civilization.
Moreover refusal to debate is just presented as knowing they'd lose. I think much is more is gained than is lost and it may encourage others to take this creationist stuff on.
Some posters have used the term "creationism" as though it were synonymous with Young Earth Creationism, when in fact the gulf between them is immense. Better minds that Ken Ham's do accept YEC, which simply boils down to the narrowest possible form of Bible literalism -- a narrow, wooden reading of the Bible is "God's word," and anything that conflicts with this narrow, wooden reading is ipso facto incorrect. If science appears to conflict with this narrow, wooden reading, science is simply wrong and will eventually be proved to be so. This argument is taken to such absurd extremes as claiming that the Doppler effect was "planted" by God to ... well, to do something or other, but in any event the Doppler effect is misleading and wrong. Garden-variety creationism (or Old Earth Creationism), on the other hand, is a perfectly reasonable position which even someone as intelligent and sane as TVB himself maintains, as do plenty of mainstream scientists. It is unfortunate that the debate did not include someone like John C. Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University (John Lennox | Science and Ethics), who would definitely have landed some punches to the jaw of Science Guy.
I doubt that Lennox would have done any better...The problem creationists have is not who is doing the debating, but the fact that all they have is a myth to defend, and that is not possible.
I doubt that Lennox would have done any better...The problem creationists have is not who is doing the debating, but the fact that all they have is a myth to defend, and that is not possible.
It is still possible for them to frame the debate as a show trial, ask "have you quit beating your wife" style questions, and perform ad hominem attacks, etc. This has "preaching to the choir" value, particularly if most of the audience present are believers.
Therefore, the debater on the side of science will do better or worse based on whether they can arrange a fair debate format and ground rules with an independent referee, and how well they can stay on point and not get drawn into bogus arguments and box canyons.
I was frustrated that they were talking past each other all night---not even attempting to answer many of the objections each other would bring up. I think maybe if a format of cross-examination had been used, it would have been better. Oftentimes I was wishing Ham would speak directly to some misleading statement that Nye made. I thought Nye was condescending all night long and he kept repeating the stupid notion that Creationists don't like science.
I doubt that Lennox would have done any better...The problem creationists have is not who is doing the debating, but the fact that all they have is a myth to defend, and that is not possible.
You may doubt that, but I, who am actually familiar with Lennox's work, do not doubt that.
One does not typically become a Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University by being a credulous fool. In addition to his work in Christian apologetics, Lennox "studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds a DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Wuerzburg and Freiburg in Germany. In addition to over seventy published mathematical papers he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series."
Nye, on the other hand, is breathlessly described on Wikipedia as "attending Lafayette Elementary and Alice Deal Junior High in the city, [being] accepted to the private Sidwell Friends School on a partial scholarship and graduat[ing] in 1973. He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where one of his professors was Carl Sagan) and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977."
WOW, one of his professors was Carl Sagan! Yeah, I think Lennox would have landed some solid punches.
Moderator cut: off topic
Last edited by Miss Blue; 02-06-2014 at 10:39 AM..
I was frustrated that they were talking past each other all night---not even attempting to answer many of the objections each other would bring up. I think maybe if a format of cross-examination had been used, it would have been better. Oftentimes I was wishing Ham would speak directly to some misleading statement that Nye made. I thought Nye was condescending all night long and he kept repeating the stupid notion that Creationists don't like science.
Odd you think that Nye was condescending. I feel he held back and avoided a ton of avenues he could have used to mash Ham's position to pieces even further. I find Ham's constant attempts to alter the audiences understanding of terms used were pretty arrogant. Ham: Let's redefine the English language so the words may reflect my belief system in a more positive light.
Ken kept harping on the fact that Christians are responsible for modern advances in science as if someone was even trying to discount that. I'm sure people of many different faiths have offered great discoveries to society but they are still going to twist words to connect science to fit their faith. Many of these faiths CLEARLY contradict science as we know it today.
I was frustrated that they were talking past each other all night---not even attempting to answer many of the objections each other would bring up. I think maybe if a format of cross-examination had been used, it would have been better. Oftentimes I was wishing Ham would speak directly to some misleading statement that Nye made. I thought Nye was condescending all night long and he kept repeating the stupid notion that Creationists don't like science.
Stupid? Science has reached a settled consensus called the Theory of Evolution. You don't agree with that position, therefore, by definition you "don't like" science -- at least, if it contradicts the Bible. Nor does Ham. Nor does any creationist.
You might claim to like science, "rightly understood" or some such, but science is what it is, not what you wish it were.
Odd you think that Nye was condescending. I feel he held back and avoided a ton of avenues he could have used to mash Ham's position to pieces even further. I find Ham's constant attempts to alter the audiences understanding of terms used were pretty arrogant. Ham: Let's redefine the English language so the words may reflect my belief system in a more positive light.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
Ken kept harping on the fact that Christians are responsible for modern advances in science as if someone was even trying to discount that.
I think that's a very relevant point, considering the basis for Nye's argument was that to believe in Creationism (and not evolution) was to be an idiot incapable of rational thought.
Quote:
I'm sure people of many different faiths have offered great discoveries to society but they are still going to twist words to connect science to fit their faith. Many of these faiths CLEARLY contradict science as we know it today.
On one hand, you suggest Ham was arrogant for suggesting maybe we ought to look at the meanings of words, then you say that those faiths contradict science "as we know it today". That's really the issue. Creation scientists are real scientists. They just don't do it the way that Nye thinks it should be done.
Stupid? Science has reached a settled consensus called the Theory of Evolution. You don't agree with that position, therefore, by definition you "don't like" science -- at least, if it contradicts the Bible. Nor does Ham. Nor does any creationist.
You might claim to like science, "rightly understood" or some such, but science is what it is, not what you wish it were.
A "settled consensus" is hardly the last word. Science has reached many "settled consensuses" that were later dramatically unsettled. The science of the day, regardless of whatever day we happen to be talking about, always has an arrogance about it that, in retrospect, is often seen to have been entirely unfounded. As a creationist, I have no problem with science or even the Theory of Evolution per se. I simply believe that other evidence points toward a Creator more convincingly than the Theory of Evolution points toward the absence of a Creator. There is no question that, just as "Christianity" now serves as a code word for a certain political agenda, "Science" likewise serves as a code word for a certain political agenda when what we are talking about is not really Science any more than "Christianity" is really Christianity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
