I think this Ark project is a wonderful idea…as long as there is a proper follow-thru. Once it is built, we shove as many pairs of animals as will fit into the thing, along with Ken Ham and his family, then seal it up for about a year.
A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Nye quite by accident at DC’s Union Station. I was with a reporter doing a story about terrorism on trains when I spotted him standing there and I nudged my reporter to go ask him a ‘man on the street’ question.
The reporter had no clue who Bill Nye was. We approached and the reporter did his ‘hi how are you, mind if we ask a question?’ dance and I could tell Bill was surprised to be treated like just some commuter in a bow tie.
He agreed to be asked the question, gave a good answer and after, when we generally ask “What’s your name and where are you from”, I was at least able to interject “got the name, need the hometown.”
In that brief dialog I am assured Bill Nye has nothing to fear from anyone in a debate. He’s more than bright enough. Most people at debates come in with their minds already made up.
I have always been a fan of free speech for the simple reason that by allowing people to speak their mind you have no ambiguity regarding their beliefs. Bill will do his best to contrast Mr Ham’s beliefs with facts and reason. Facts are facts; a debate cannot harm them and predecided witnesses are unlikely to change. But there does exist the possibility that if and when the event is released to the general public those willing to learn something might actually do so.
That’s a bit cruel. Let’s just send the Hams out to sea in their ark. I’m sure a boat made of chipboard will be entirely seaworthy.
What you say is true for honest debate. This isn’t going to be one of those.
Glenn Beck compares this debate to Galileo vs. the RCC over heliocentrism.
Only, in this comparison, Nye is the Church and Ham is Galileo.
Seriously.
What is required for this “debate” to be effective in changing minds is an open mind with a sound conviction that science has a process which leads to discovery of fact.
This will not be the case. Most of the audience will be heavily biased by personal conviction toward Creationism. Their conviction that science can lead to discovery of fact if the fact being discovered is at odds with a text written by God will be negligible.
As a consequence, all Ham will need to do is ask an assortment of questions–or make an assortment of assertions–that to those uneducated on the topic appear profound and unsettling.
The audience will concur that Nye made some good points, Ham made some good points, and the mind of Man is easily confused. Good thing God is in control of the Universe, and we have his Word that the earth was created recently with a good deal of divine intervention into an intelligent design.
What this will not be is an exploration of the topic with the “winning” side being the one which presented overwhelming evidence, carefully examined.
Screw Bill Nye, he’s probably out for another quick buck.
I’ve met him and he’s a douche. Very pompous.
Not like how Brian Dunning makes money.
From the news article:
So a Kentucky government body is assisting in the project, using tax dollars. Think that might be an excessive entanglement with religion?
I don’t understand this fear. There is no one sitting on the fence here; everyone watching this debate already has an opinion. Not a single person will change their mind as a result of this debate. OTOH, people might be exposed to arguments from the other side that they had not considered. There is absolutely NO HARM in someone educated in basic science being exposed to creationist arguments, because the creationist arguments are bad. Even if someone who has been taught about evolution hears something from Ham that makes her think, “Hmmm…that’s a good point, maybe I should research this a little more and re-evaluate my position,” that’s fine because doing more research can only strengthen her understanding of the facts. OTOH, there are people who have never been taught science, including children today who are being taught in homeschool and private/charter schools, for whom this might be their ONLY exposure to real science. And even if all their fundamentalist parents and teachers are convinced that Ham mopped the floor with Nye, at least those kids will have heard some of the facts, and some of those kids might realize that there are smart, friendly people with real evidence on the other side, not just evil satanists full of lies. Nye is an expert at teaching science to kids. If anyone can get through to some of them, it’s him.
To sum it up, everyone watching has an opinion, and each person watching will either have his opinion strengthened or will be made to question his beliefs. And having anyone, from either side, question their beliefs is GOOD, because questioning leads to facts and the facts all point to evolution. The people who have their belief in creationism strengthened weren’t interested in facts to begin with, and it doesn’t matter if they think they won because they were going to think that no matter what, even if there is no debate.
I’d agree, if all that was happening by accidental collision of people whose beliefs happened to conflict, but it’s not. It’s happening because of deliberate dishonesty.
I love Bill Nye and everything, but let’s be a little honest about his credentials; his experience lies in being a television show host, not a teacher. He has a considerable list of credentials in hosting children’s TV programs but none at all in teaching children; they are different skills. And a public debate is an entirely different skill again.
That said, I think you make a good point about the fact that debate will always favour evolution, since debate invites questioning and the answers are 100% on the side of evolution; creationism is a political position, not a scientific one, and polticial positions are strengthened by suppressing debate, not engaging in it. This is especially true of creationism, which is a political movement (of very recent invention, relatively speaking) that is specifically designed to increase ignorance and discourage curiosity and questioning, on the theory that a person who lacks scientific understanding and curiosity is easier to keep as a compliant Christian, since they can be easily fed Biblical answers.
I sincerely doubt Ken Ham actually believe in creationism. He’s an educated man. However, the creationist industry is a key pillar in the evangelical Christian business model. People have an intrinsic need for answers and understanding; if you can deny them the real answers of science they are easily led to fill that need with Christian dogma. That keep them going to megachurches and tithing, which keeps the megachurch pastors rich, so the pastors support the Ken Hams of the world. Ham knows where the money is.
In the PBS seriesEvolution they talk to Ken Ham and he explains that he believes in creationism because if the bible gets the facts wrong in the creation of the universe and the origin of man then how can he believe the bible gets it right in regards to God? He basically said that if creationism is wrong there is no God so he will NEVER believe anything that contradicts the bible.
The fact that Mr. Ham says that on camera does not convince me he actually believes it.
That’s not even the same as saying he believes it - he’s just making an appeal to consequences.
He’s actually saying he has to believe it because (his view of) the consequences of not believing it scare him. That’s not belief, it’s wilful ignorance.
What I find so baffling is that Nye would agree to holding a debate at the Creation Museum with proceeds going towards the Creation Museum. Given that you can’t reason people out of beliefs they didn’t reason themselves into, it’s a foregone conclusion that the audience will be, and remain hostile to Nye’s arguments, maybe vocally so.
But what if he’s not playing to the audience of hundreds on that one day and rather the audience of millions that will see portions of this online afterwards? We have seen what happens when the unfettered groupthink within an ideological bubble gets exposed to the general public: the nation recoiled when Ron Paul asked the hard-right crowd whether we should let the uninsured die, to enthusiast cheers.
Its hard to argue that the conditions are right for the audience’s inevitable bias to be on full display for the cameras to capture. Nye made his name by being able to connect to the viewing audience and making science accessible. Whatever one’s objections to debating religious ideologues, I think someone like Nye (or Penn Jillette) is better suited to “playing to the cameras” than your average expert biologist.
Moreover, I think Nye has a golden opportunity to use the resulting footage to produce YouTube-ready clips that debunk the creationist double-talk after the fact. If he can bring even a fraction of of the infotainment production value that made Bill Nye, the Science Guy such a hit, I think the experience has the potential for a big win for science.
TLDR: Bill Nye could use his TV savvy to win the debate in post-event world, even if/when the debate audience remains unconvinced. In fact, having a particularly vocal anti-science audience may be counter-productive to their own perception among the majority of Americans who accept evolution.
Is this thing being videoed or broadcast over the web?
There is a “test” of the live feed being sent right now (started 1PM EST). Those who want to see the debate live are encouraged (by the debate organizers) to check out their system using this test.
So what are they using as a test? A church service by Ken Ham bombasting science! Anyone still want to argue this debate will be fair?