He has no consistent ideologyOh its very consistant. It will be the same on wednesday as it was on monday regardless of what he learned tuesday.
No that makes him consisten IN his beliefs, it does not make his beliefs consistent.
It's hard for me to imagine a "center" position. Who is on the fence to a point that either Bill Nye will could convince them to be an athiest, or that Ham will convert into a fundementalist?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard for me to imagine a "center" position. Who is on the fence to a point that either Bill Nye will could convince them to be an athiest, or that Ham will convert into a fundementalist?
That's the great thing about it -- Nye doesn't have to "convince you to be an atheist," he just needs to convince you that the scientific method that brought us antibiotics, heart surgery, the automobile, and electric lights hasn't somehow become irrelevant or incapable of making any further advances -- and that the stuff we learn using it can't just be thrown out if it happens to disagree with a 2,000-year-old book written by Bronze Age herdsmen.
Ham, on the other hand, has to convince you that science somehow only works if you abandon the scientific method and just make stuff up, that cause and effect are almost never valid, and that the universe and all its laws magically and dramatically change on an unpredictable basis.
Personally, if I were a Christian, I'd find Nye a LOT more convincing, because I'd want to believe that God in His wisdom made a universe with consistent laws, not an arbitrary madhouse.
It's hard for me to imagine a "center" position. Who is on the fence to a point that either Bill Nye will could convince them to be an athiest, or that Ham will convert into a fundementalist?That's the great thing about it -- Nye doesn't have to "convince you to be an atheist," he just needs to convince you that the scientific method that brought us antibiotics, heart surgery, the automobile, and electric lights hasn't somehow become irrelevant or incapable of making any further advances -- and that the stuff we learn using it can't just be thrown out if it happens to disagree with a 2,000-year-old book written by Bronze Age herdsmen.
Ham, on the other hand, has to convince you that science somehow only works if you abandon the scientific method and just make stuff up, that cause and effect are almost never valid, and that the universe and all its laws magically and dramatically change on an unpredictable basis.
Personally, if I were a Christian, I'd find Nye a LOT more convincing, because I'd want to believe that God in His wisdom made a universe with consistent laws, not an arbitrary madhouse.
All of that is correct, and I apparently missed the point of the debate.
It's hard for me to imagine a "center" position. Who is on the fence to a point that either Bill Nye will could convince them to be an athiest, or that Ham will convert into a fundementalist?
Theistic evolution is a middle ground that is perfectly acceptable to Nye - he even says so. He wants to convince people that the world works in predicable ways and that continued questioning can gain us knowledge. That is his goal. Strict creationism is the antithisis to that. If he can cause people to accept the less literal interpretations of the bible he wins. And its not like those interpretations are less common, seeing as how the Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution and finds it wholely compatible with their faith.
All of that is correct, and I apparently missed the point of the debate.
Yeah, I agree the point wasn't really clear -- at all.
Ham kept trying to use the word "scientist" to mean "inventor," and kept trying to claim the scientific method is useless because, in his mind, the past is unfathomable because of the extreme arbitrariness of the universe. That's why he's OK with a 6,000-year-old universe and teaching The Flintstones as valid fact.
Nye, on the other hand, went on about how great he thinks science is, but did a poor job, I thought, of tying things together in a nice bow for the audience.
The urge to worship a deity is something that's written to our genes almost as strongly as sex.
CITATION NEEDED
How does the prevalence of religious debate on a gaming company's forums in any way evidence the genetic need to worship a deity. Not just a predisposition for belief in the supernatural, but specifically "worship" a "deity"? How do you square this belief with cultures that have no deities, but rather spirits? What about religious traditions that are atheistic?
Seriously "I saw it once in an old NatGeo" isn't enough for that outlandishly bold statement.
I'm taking more issue with the way you phrased your claim, quite honestly. I think humans have a predisposition (though I wouldn't go anywhere near calling it a need or urge) to create religion, but then, religion is just upholstery buttons.
and kept trying to claim the scientific method is useless because, in his mind, the past is unfathomable because of the extreme arbitrariness of the universe. That's why he's OK with a 6,000-year-old universe and teaching The Flintstones as valid fact.
Well, thats basically the problem of induction. How do you answer it?
Personally, if I were a Christian, I'd find Nye a LOT more convincing, because I'd want to believe that God in His wisdom made a universe with consistent laws, not an arbitrary madhouse.
Wait... so when God wrote Creation: The RPG, he intended it to be played RAW and not with house rules?
Well, crap. :(
The urge to worship a deity is something that's written to our genes almost as strongly as sex.
No... it's not. The urge to explain our surroundings may be written on our genes. However, I'd say we're just inherently constrained by the tools we have. Today, we have microscopes and widely accepted scientific process. Way back then there were only our eyes, the ability to talk with one another, and reason that didn't have the benefit of thousands of years of philosophy and prior discovery.
He may be talking about the debate itself...
correct
To be clear America also totally rocks for having guys like Bill Nye.
You do know stuff like this makes America look silly.You think America is the only place with young earth creationists?
To answer your question directly, no I don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think America is the only place that declaring yourself a YEC makes you MORE likely to be elected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You make the same classic mistake that everyone who's ever debated a Creationist has made, including Nye. That this is a battle that's going to be fought on logic. It has been fought AND LOST over more primal drives. The urge to worship a deity is something that's written to our genes almost as strongly as sex. You might as well try to argue the logical reasons for abstinence.And unfortunately all Bill Nye accomplished in that debate, was to give him more of what he craves... publicity. It is very unlikely that Nye converted a single creationist in his widespread audience. On the other hand, Ham got to rally the troops and show them front and center the "Anti-Godness" of science by keeping it a Nye vs. God's account approach. He framed his approach that to reject Creationism is to reject the ONE Witness who matters, the big G-Man.Well, then that person should be irrelevant.Sadly, he helps spearhead a movement that is gaining traction and affecting public policy.I disagree. Nye made Ham sound like an idiot. While the Creationists may use it as a rally cry, the people in the center saw a well reasoned, energetic person up against a close minded fool. If people don't call creationism out and actually address it's stupidity, then it will only gain momentum as it has for the past decade.
I think it would be better if it was a Christian scientist who debated Ham so that he couldn't use the anti-god angle, but Nye is a well respected face who knows how to be in front of a camera. Scientists need more of those.
I have been reading a number of arguments giving reasons both for and against Nye debating. The argument of giving it legitamecy falls flat. They already have it in the US where it matters - the public eye and political realms. We need to take it away, and you can't do that by closing your eyes and pretending they aren't there. You need to drag them out into the light for everyone to see and realise they are talking out their ass. The diehards are never going to change, but Nye did that for people in the center. And as the center shifts, the diehards are going to have a harder time becoming mainstream, and their less diehard base will slowly errode into the former center. This wont happen if we stay quiet.
Indeed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, thats basically the problem of induction. How do you answer it?
I look at it this way: maybe Last Thursdayism is actually true. But believing that does absolutely nothing in terms of making accurate predictions or negotiating life. Likewise, I might be in a tank with all my "experiences" being implanted, but it serves no point in assuming that to be the case.
Barring those cases, we have enough amassed data indicating the cause and effect relationships exist to provisionally accept that they probably do, in fact, exist.
Claiming that they radically and unpredictably alter -- that tomorrow, punching someone in the face might heal a nosebleed instead of causing it -- is a pretty damn outrageous claim. It needs to be backed with at least a bit of evidence for me to take it seriously. The claim that this has in fact already happened in the past, and that we were somehow unable to observe or remember it? That's Ham's claim, and it's even more outrageous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, my favorite Ken Ham quote:
Scientists, like everyone else, are sinners. Because of this, they don’t want to believe. It has nothing to do with evidence.
How do you debate that sort of inanity?
Ham rejects the philosophical underpinnings of science.
This makes him whackadoo because _______________ ?
You answered your own question before you asked it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, my favorite Ken Ham quote:
Scientists, like everyone else, are sinners. Because of this, they don’t want to believe. It has nothing to do with evidence.How do you debate that sort of inanity?
You don't. You pull it out into the public eye where people who haven't thought about creationism much or solidified their views hear it and dout his message. You put it side by side with people who demonstratedly reveal its hypocracy. You accept that those he already has converted will stick with him, but they aren't your audience and who you need to convince. You need to reach the high school students who are starting to question their parrent's teachings. If he is a political candidate, you need to hit the people who don't think their vote matters and give them a reason to go out. You do the same thing people who fight bigotry, racism and sexism do to advance their causes.
All of that is correct, and I apparently missed the point of the debate.
The point of the debate was to allow Ham to get on national media, promote his Creation Museum, enhance his fund-raising capacity, and permit people who want to push creationism to point to this debate as support for the idea that there's a real controversy and therefore evolution is a controversial position that can be excluded from science classrooms -- or alternatively, that creationism is an equally credible position that cannot be so excluded.
If I wanted to put creationism into the local school district, I would have my hand substantially strengthened by pointing out that it's a matter of genuine public discourse and dispute, and that therefore, it's only fair that this dispute should be presented in a fair and balanced way to the students in all of the biology classes.
Basically, Nye is a total and complete sucker.
Ham rejects the philosophical underpinnings of science.
This makes him whackadoo because _______________ ?
You answered your own question before you asked it.
Repeatedly, but my answer is that the allegedly philosophical underlinings of science are conclusions well grounded in fact tends to draw the ire of the less philistinesque forum goers.
All of that is correct, and I apparently missed the point of the debate.
The point of the debate was to allow Ham to get on national media, promote his Creation Museum, enhance his fund-raising capacity, and permit people who want to push creationism to point to this debate as support for the idea that there's a real controversy and therefore evolution is a controversial position that can be excluded from science classrooms -- or alternatively, that creationism is an equally credible position that cannot be so excluded.
If I wanted to put creationism into the local school district, I would have my hand substantially strengthened by pointing out that it's a matter of genuine public discourse and dispute, and that therefore, it's only fair that this dispute should be presented in a fair and balanced way to the students in all of the biology classes.
Basically, Nye is a total and complete sucker.
This kind of thinking is why scientists have been losing the public debate for years. By refusing to acknoledge it and mount serious, public pushback against it we are basically conceding to a slow, inevitable defeat.
This kind of thinking is why scientists have been losing the public debate for years. By refusing to acknoledge it and mount serious, public pushback against it we are basically conceding to a slow, inevitable defeat.
Actually,... no.
First, scientists aren't losing the public debate; we're winning it. Evolution has become increasingly marginalized over the past forty years as it gets pushed further and further from the mainstream, which is exactly why Ham and company love opportunities like this for public debate.
Second, one of the major reasons why scientists are winning the public debate is precisely by not fighting "the enemy" on territory of his choosing. The rules of formal debates like this are very carefully set up to enable good debaters instead of good positions. Time limits, for example, favor short theoretical arguments over long empirical analyses. Television and mass media favor sound bites and slogans over evidence. Verbal presentation favors statements over citations. It's very easy to answer a different question than the one you were asked, or to shift the topic to whatever you want to talk about. The effect is that it's much more compelling to lie quickly than to tell the truth slowly, and the "winner" is the one who can get the best lie in first.
In a different venue, for example, the Dover Pandas trial, there are no time limits (I can cross-examine Dr. Behe for as long as I like) and I can challenge his statements at any point if I feel they're wrong. I can also insist on a responsive answer if I feel he's trying to wriggle out of an uncomfortable admission. ("Just a yes or no, please, Dr. Behe. Isn't it true that ... ?") That's one reason that creationism hasn't won a major court case since the mid-1960s.
Thirdly, the scientific response to creationism has had the side-effect of creating a huge paper trail, both of scientific evidence as well as of creationist arguments themselves. The effect is that more and more arguments are documented as having been thoroughly discredited. Answers in Genesis, for example, maintains a list of "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use," precisely because they acknowledge that those arguments are ignorant, dishonest, and tend to make them look like fools. What they don't explicitly acknowledge is that these are arguments that have been used (in many cases by AiG themselves) and are still being used. However, every time those arguments are trotted out, it's very easy for someone simply to pop to the AiG site itself and point out that they're discredited.
.... or rather, it's very easy for someone to do that if they're in a discussion setting that doesn't discourage factual reference as a form of refutation. That's why Ham wants a televised debate and not a set of letters in a journal-of-record. Actually, he'd love a set of letters in a journal-of-record, because he'd love to get the attention of the peer-reviewed scientific press, but every time the creationists have tried to go that way, they've gotten burned very badly.
(Look at the Wedge Document. One of their major efforts was to infiltrate the scientific literature. They failed miserably and actually set their cause back in the attempt. The only area they can win is in Lincoln-Douglas style "debates." That's why they push them, and that's why Nye was a fool to try to fight them in that particular arena.)
Define winning?
I'd consider the evidence that fewer people think that evolution is real now, compared to 30 years ago, to show that science is losing.
Just because you win battles, doesn't mean you're winning the war.
This kind of thinking is why scientists have been losing the public debate for years. By refusing to acknoledge it and mount serious, public pushback against it we are basically conceding to a slow, inevitable defeat.Actually,... no.
First, scientists aren't losing the public debate; we're winning it. Evolution has become increasingly marginalized over the past forty years as it gets pushed further and further from the mainstream, which is exactly why Ham and company love opportunities like this for public debate.
Second, one of the major reasons why scientists are winning the public debate is precisely by not fighting "the enemy" on territory of his choosing. The rules of formal debates like this are very carefully set up to enable good debaters instead of good positions. Time limits, for example, favor short theoretical arguments over long empirical analyses. Television and mass media favor sound bites and slogans over evidence. Verbal presentation favors statements over citations. It's very easy to answer a different question than the one you were asked, or to shift the topic to whatever you want to talk about. The effect is that it's much more compelling to lie quickly than to tell the truth slowly, and the "winner" is the one who can get the best lie in first.
In a different venue, for example, the Dover Pandas trial, there are no time limits (I can cross-examine Dr. Behe for as long as I like) and I can challenge his statements at any point if I feel they're wrong. I can also insist on a responsive answer if I feel he's trying to wriggle out of an uncomfortable admission. ("Just a yes or no, please, Dr. Behe. Isn't it true that ... ?") That's one reason that creationism hasn't won a major court case since the mid-1960s.
Thirdly, the scientific response to creationism has had the side-effect of creating a huge paper trail, both of scientific evidence as well as of creationist arguments themselves. The effect is that more and...
How can you say we are winnin the public debate and then say evolution is becoming more and more marginalized? Evolution becoming marginalized is by definition losing the public debate.
Like it or not, it is the sound bites that will convince the populous. It doesn't matter how many court cases you win, or scientific journals refuse to acknolege creationism, or websites are out there debunking their claims. If they win the media battle, or are allowed to go arround the media, they grow in the public sphere. That is where they are the most dangerous. They need to be defeated in ways people will see. That requires well publicised criticisms, and this debate has generated attention on prime time national news pretty much universally saying Nye won. It gave us some great sound bites that will cause people to question the creationist leaders and made them look like loons. That is a more major win than any court case.
This kind of thinking is why scientists have been losing the public debate for years. By refusing to acknoledge it and mount serious, public pushback against it we are basically conceding to a slow, inevitable defeat.Actually,... no.
First, scientists aren't losing the public debate; we're winning it. Evolution has become increasingly marginalized over the past forty years as it gets pushed further and further from the mainstream, which is exactly why Ham and company love opportunities like this for public debate.
Sorry, I miswrote. ANTI-evolution has become increasingly more marginalized.
Sorry, I miswrote. ANTI-evolution has become increasingly more marginalized.
Legally yes, but not public opinion wise I think.
Sorry, I miswrote. ANTI-evolution has become increasingly more marginalized.
This kind of thinking is why scientists have been losing the public debate for years. By refusing to acknoledge it and mount serious, public pushback against it we are basically conceding to a slow, inevitable defeat.Actually,... no.
First, scientists aren't losing the public debate; we're winning it. Evolution has become increasingly marginalized over the past forty years as it gets pushed further and further from the mainstream, which is exactly why Ham and company love opportunities like this for public debate.
From what I can tell, at best the results are inconclusive to come to that conclusion, with evidence showing a growing midsection with doubts of evolution but fewer believers in creationism. Of course, in the US creationism is at least equally supported when compared to evolution among the public.
I'm going to look to see if I can find more recent polls than 2005.
wikipedia article
Evolution is supported by literally tons of empirical evidence. It's as much a fact as gravity or electromagnetism (though if denying those were practical, someone would be doing that, too). Likewise, people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old are objectively incorrect. Facts simply don't matter. It's very fascinating, really.
I think Guy may vote Democrat. I'm not 100% sure though...
;)