0
mistercwood

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - Science vs Creationism

Recommended Posts

Bill Nye, as do almost all those who debate the likes of Ham et al, miss the point of the debate. Ham didn't want to debate, he wanted to preach, and to a much larger audience. Nye, for his part, played right into this strategy. Ham, et al, KNOW they can't win on facts, theory or observation, they only want the chance to preach to a larger audience and with the appearance of equal status with those who are their opponents. Ham, even on his best day, would never even be able to debate his way out of a wet paper bag against Bill Nye or even a first year Earth Sciences student, but to preach on a national or world stage, that's what he really wanted.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I hesitate to give it, but in my opinion, the science behind Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory is weak.That is why they are called theories and not laws (such as newtons laws*).



You are factually incorrect. Theory and Law are not steps on a hierarchy. A theory never becomes a law. A law is in fact defined as a specific type of theory - a mathematical quantification of what happens in a given scenario like pushing with X force on an object of Y mass.

Secondly, the science behind evolution is not weak. Evolution has the largest body of accumulated evidence of any theory in the history of science. That evolution happens is a fact as solid as the fact that gravity happens - and we know a vast amount more about how evolution works than we do about gravity!

Quote

They have have very elegant arguments against evolution and the Big Bang theories that are quasi scientifically based.



Quasi, maybe (though 'pseudo' would be better) - elegant, no.



* Newton's laws are a great example to use because they are in fact imperfect. For situations where relativistic effects become significant Newton's laws alone will give you an incorrect answer, but they're still called laws.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NoCoSkyDiver


The problem with the creation scientists is that they do not come up with a specific hypothesis that can not be tested. They have have very elegant arguments against evolution and the Big Bang theories that are quasi scientifically based. They don't prove anything either.

Either way you have to have faith. Faith that the universe came out of a creator or out of nothing.



Right, which is why "creation scientists" is a total misnomer. It is not science in any way shape or form.

Arguments that evolution or Big Bang theories are not complete or well supported give absolutely no validity to "creation science" theories, unless you accept that these are the only two possible explanations and therefore weaknesses in one automatically strengthen the other. Of course that is philosophically hogwash. And why Scientists should not be debating this with "creation scientists".

Evolutionary theory and the big band are entirely different and separate subjects and I've never understood why they get lumped together. Neither one depends on the other to be true or well supported.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ham has a financial incentive to sell books and tickets to his amusement park.



Agreed. But his main objective was to preach. He wanted to capture a much larger and diverse audience than he alone was capable of producing. The more new faces, the more $$$ coming his way and the more clout associated with it.

We've seen this before with those who are allied with his ilk, like Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. They don't have a theme park but they will engage as they did on Nightline a few years ago just to get to a new audience. They got destroyed in the debate, but winning wasn't their objective, preaching was. Just like Ham's objective was.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee

Quote

I hesitate to give it, but in my opinion, the science behind Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory is weak.That is why they are called theories and not laws (such as newtons laws*).



You are factually incorrect. Theory and Law are not steps on a hierarchy. A theory never becomes a law. A law is in fact defined as a specific type of theory - a mathematical quantification of what happens in a given scenario like pushing with X force on an object of Y mass.

Secondly, the science behind evolution is not weak. Evolution has the largest body of accumulated evidence of any theory in the history of science. That evolution happens is a fact as solid as the fact that gravity happens - and we know a vast amount more about how evolution works than we do about gravity!

Quote

They have have very elegant arguments against evolution and the Big Bang theories that are quasi scientifically based.



Quasi, maybe (though 'pseudo' would be better) - elegant, no.



* Newton's laws are a great example to use because they are in fact imperfect. For situations where relativistic effects become significant Newton's laws alone will give you an incorrect answer, but they're still called laws.



Bravo - almost exactly how I was going to respond.
I have not heard a single creationist/ID argument that didn't play on some sort of gross misunderstanding or in fact wilful ignorance of the mechanism of evolution.

I have never understood why creationists/ ID proponents can not coexist with evolutionary science, with the simple line "Evolution is real - God designed the system that way"

(N.B. - obviously doesn't follow with Young earth creationists - but you have to pick your battles....)
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
loumeinhart

Quote

Question-Begging Argument - Where your conclusion rests on a premise that pre-supposes your conclusion is true..



That's sounds interesting, but I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around it. Anyone have a few easy examples?



"Begging the question" just means you start a discussion/argument/debate with some statement or question that assumes an answer to an unasked question. This assumed answer generally plays a key role in what you are eventually trying to prove. A classic example is the loaded question, "Are you still beating your wife?" This inquiry begs the question, "Have you beaten your wife?" If the answer to this skipped over or "begged" question is "no" then the question about whether you continue to do so isn't even valid.

Often people use the term to just mean "brings up another question" when they want to sound accusatory or intellectual, but that's silly. There's nothing wrong with making a statement that invites further questions in the conversation, that's how conversations work. It's the original definition where you've skipped a question that is the logical fallacy.

/edited to add: a plain example in this context would be a question like, "Aren't you worried God will be mad at you for not believing in Him?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
champu

***

Quote

Question-Begging Argument - Where your conclusion rests on a premise that pre-supposes your conclusion is true..



That's sounds interesting, but I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around it. Anyone have a few easy examples?



"Begging the question" just means you start a discussion/argument/debate with some statement or question that assumes an answer to an unasked question. This assumed answer generally plays a key role in what you are eventually trying to prove. A classic example is the loaded question, "Are you still beating your wife?" This inquiry begs the question, "Have you beaten your wife?" If the answer to this skipped over or "begged" question is "no" then the question about whether you continue to do so isn't even valid.

Often people use the term to just mean "brings up another question" when they want to sound accusatory or intellectual, but that's silly. There's nothing wrong with making a statement that invites further questions in the conversation, that's how conversations work. It's the original definition where you've skipped a question that is the logical fallacy.

/edited to add: a plain example in this context would be a question like, "Aren't you worried God will be mad at you for not believing in Him?"

The beating your wife example demonstrates the fallacy of Compound Question, as is the presumption that Zeus is touchy about those who doubt His existence.

Begging the Question, or Petito Principi, is more of the form:

People with good literary taste prefer Shakespeare to Harold Robbins.

How can you identify people with good literary taste?

Because they are reading Shakespeare instead of Harold Robbins.

In the case of Petito Principi the premise defines the conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NoCoSkyDiver


I hesitate to give it, but in my opinion, the science behind Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory is weak. That is why they are called theories and not laws ( such as newtons laws. They really do not scientifically prove creation or evolution. That is why most are somewhat intolerant of criticism.

The problem with the creation scientists is that they do not come up with a specific hypothesis that can not be tested. They have have very elegant arguments against evolution and the Big Bang theories that are quasi scientifically based. They don't prove anything either.

Either way you have to have faith. Faith that the universe came out of a creator or out of nothing.



First off, anyone who says "Evolution is just a theory" has no idea what a real theory is.

There's nothing "weak" about evolution. It's been very thoroughly established scientifically.

Darwin's theory has been tested, criticized, reexamined, and altered.

That's what science does.

To say that they are "intolerant of criticism" is to completely misunderstand the scientific process.
Everything is subject to criticism, review and change.

Look at our understanding of the dinosaurs. We've gone from slow, ponderous creatures, to very quick and elegant ones. We've gone from "they all went extinct" to "they aren't around in the form they were, but many have evolved into birds."

There is a lot of dissention in scientific circles, the standard of proof is pretty high. They actually welcome criticism, as long as it's valid. Saying "Well, that's not what my book of Bronze Age myths, legends and folk tales says" isn't any more valid than saying "Evolution Science is the damned lies of the Devil."

And the only elegance that the creationists have is in their oratory. They have zero science behind their arguments. Their only argument is that the Bible is the word of God (which also isn't true).

Last, science doesn't have Faith that the Universe (or life on earth) was created from "nothing." They think it came from something. It had to have. They just don't know what that "something" was. Not yet.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StreetScooby

Ken Ham did a very good job framing the debate by presenting non-standard definitions of science.



It was only a "good job" to those who don't understand the normal definitions. To anyone else it should have been a clear case of bulllshit.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StreetScooby

I watched the opening statements. Ken Ham did a very good job framing the debate by presenting non-standard definitions of science. You were not going to win any argument with him, using his definitions. These debates are simply pointless, IMO.

Part of the problem is also that it doesn't matter if you win the argument, as that is not the point of the exercise from the creationist side. The point they really want to make is that there is a scientific debate on the topic at all, because that feeds their "teach the controversy" strategy to get Genesis included as a science textbook in schools. From that perspective they win as long as anybody agrees to debate them. Of course, creationist arguments are vacuous and easily rebutted, but at the end of the day none of Ham's followers would be convinced by anything Nye could possibly bring to the table, and vice versa.

Unfortunately this sets up a "when did you stop beating your wife" no-correct-answer situation. If Nye debates Ham, that validates the "controvery" and Hamm wins. If Nye declines, it must be because he can't answer Ham's "brilliant science", and Ham wins. These heads-I-win, tails-you-lose strategies may suit lawyers and politicians (I think Ham is a lawyer by training), but they aren't natural to scientists whose own predilections are oriented towards discovering the truth.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Science and Spiritual awareness are both necessary to understand the whole
>Truth. The two are not mutually exclusive.

While I agree a lot of people don't. From Michael Peroutka, founder of the “Institute on the Constitution” and the Constitution Party presidential candidate:

==================
. . . creation occurred about 6000 years ago. So the whole idea of evolution and that the Earth is millions and millions of years old is absolutely antithetical to America . . .What I am saying is that the promotion of evolution is an act of disloyalty to America. What I’m saying is that there is no way you could promote or believe in evolution and sing ‘God Bless America’ during the 7th inning stretch.
==================

A lot of Americans still believe this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0