Ken Ham v. Bill Nye debate

[JenniferB]

Hey girl...

[Embassy]

I don't think this debate makes much sense.  I've heard Ken Ham debate several times and mostly his points are theological.  Bill Nye's points will be scientific.   :huh:

[Mergath]

I don't think this debate makes much sense.  I've heard Ken Ham debate several times and mostly his points are theological.  Bill Nye's points will be scientific.   :huh:

 

Hopefully that's one of the things Bill Nye will explain to Ken Ham, because Ham always seems a little confused on that point. ;)

[Catwoman]

My little guy would be crushed, he is always rockin a boy tie. You can't say this ain't cute! lol

 

 

or this

You know I intentionally quoted your post just so your adorable son's pictures would be posted again, right? :)

 

He is ADORABLE!!! (But tell him I said he's handsome, because it sounds more masculine and grown-up!)

[LucyStoner]

I've got to find my younger son some bow-ties. Dory, your guy is awesome.

[NicAnn]

I'm disappointed bill nye is debating with man who has no interest in debate.

The purpose of a discussion such as this, should be to make the other side aware of logical fallacies, incorrect data, and an alternative view of the topic. There should be an opportunity to change someone's mind. That doesn't exist in this scenario. Neither Nye nor Ham are even taking about the same subject. Neither will walk away with any sort of enlightenment at all.

[Mom in High Heels]

Call mom and stepdad a taxi, girl! Where's your sense of commitment to this board?? ;-)

 

I know I've let you all down, but I felt it was my duty to drive them there.   If it will make you happy, I had a drink when I got home!

 

Every day is wine day.  I don't get it.   :tongue_smilie:

 

I get the Orthodox thing, but every day is wine day at my house!  

[Onceuponatime]

I'm disappointed bill nye is debating with man who has no interest in debate.

The purpose of a discussion such as this, should be to make the other side aware of logical fallacies, incorrect data, and an alternative view of the topic. There should be an opportunity to change someone's mind. That doesn't exist in this scenario. Neither Nye nor Ham are even taking about the same subject. Neither will walk away with any sort of enlightenment at all.

 

I'm pretty sure Bill Nye knows he won't change Ham's mind. He's probably thinking of the people who will be watching.

I wonder how many people will tune in.

 

ETA: Aren't formal debates intended for an audience anyway? When candidates for office debate they aren't really trying to convince the other candidates to change, they are trying to convince the audience to see things their way.

[Moxie]

Hopefully that's one of the things Bill Nye will explain to Ken Ham, because Ham always seems a little confused on that point. ;)

I'm pretty sure Ken Ham lacks the humility to learn anything from anyone.

[WishboneDawn]

:cursing:

 

WOW! Just because others have different views than you, you feel justified in calling them sycophants! I feel my views are Bible based and I am clearly not a sycophant.

I don't think you need to feel that any reference to Ken Hamm and his sycophants refers to anyone who shared his view on creation.

 

That man is a special case of ego.

[WishboneDawn]

So are they debating theology or science? Seems a bit like asking a violinist and a cardiologist to make brie.

I suspect even the theology will be suspect.

 

Regardless, I won't be watching. If it's like other debates I've seen or been engaged in Bill won't get into anything important because he'll be trying to backfill by explaining basic ideas of science ( like what a theory really is) and Ken will not bother with science at all and instead rely on rhetorical tricks and devices.

[Zebra]

The only thing that is going to change because of this debate is certain bank account balances.

 

I can't stand either of them, so I remain firmly on Team Cupcake.

[kiana]

I'm disappointed bill nye is debating with man who has no interest in debate.

The purpose of a discussion such as this, should be to make the other side aware of logical fallacies, incorrect data, and an alternative view of the topic. There should be an opportunity to change someone's mind. That doesn't exist in this scenario. Neither Nye nor Ham are even taking about the same subject. Neither will walk away with any sort of enlightenment at all.

 

Debating or persistently correcting someone who has no interest in debate may yet be productive. The purpose is not to reach the hard-line, but rather the silent lurkers who may be watching.

 

For example, when someone posts a rabidly anti-homeschool post on other places I read, I tend to chime in with the experiences of the people I know. I'm not trying to reach the extremists, but I am adding another viewpoint for the moderates.

[DawnM]

In my opinion, he does.  I watched a him recently where he begged parents to not teach "that creationism hogwash" to their children as it just isn't scientific, "teach them evolution because it is true!" he touted.

 

To me, this is extreme.  To say, "Make sure your kids understand the theory of evolution" would make him not extreme.

 

 

Bill Nye does not hold an extreme position.

 

[dbmamaz]

In my opinion, he does.  I watched a him recently where he begged parents to not teach "that creationism hogwash" to their children as it just isn't scientific, "teach them evolution because it is true!" he touted.

 

To me, this is extreme.  To say, "Make sure your kids understand the theory of evolution" would make him not extreme.

I have to admit, as a firm evolution-camp-member, I was unhappy when I saw that quote.  Its obviously not the way to reach people.  I thought it was a groan-worthy moment and could not figure out why all my fb friends were posting it. 

 

But I'm REALLY on team NdGT . . . i cant wait to see Cosmos reboot, but really wonder if it will cover evolution appropriately or not.  

[Saddlemomma]

I don't see how this thread will be so entertaining.

 

Is there a creationist who is going to volunteer as tribute and come in here to debate?

 

I'm a creationist, but not necessarily young earth.  I do believe in evolution, just not Darwinian Evolution. I don't particularly like either of these gentlemen because they don't respect the opinions of their opponents and are not particularly respectful of others' views in general. 

 

I don't get involved in these types of debates because they usually devolve into smug, arrogant, smear campaigns by those out there who think they know more than scientists - especially ID scientists who have earned their doctorates and Ph.D.'s from the same institutions as non-ID proponents.

 

I prefer Greg Koukl, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, and Dr. William Lane Craig.  They, at least, are respectful and extremely knowledgeable about the facts.  Either one of these gentlemen could wipe the floor with Ken Ham and/or Bill Nye without trying too hard.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have to admit, as a firm evolution-camp-member, I was unhappy when I saw that quote.  Its obviously not the way to reach people.  I thought it was a groan-worthy moment and could not figure out why all my fb friends were posting it. 

 

But I'm REALLY on team NdGT . . . i cant wait to see Cosmos reboot, but really wonder if it will cover evolution appropriately or not.  

 

The wording is a bit harsh, but his stance that creationism is NOT a science is correct.  Anyone who deludes themselves into believing they are teaching anything with a pseudo-science curriculum like the one published by Ham is doing their children a terrible disservice.

[Lady Florida.]

The wording is a bit harsh, but his stance that creationism is NOT a science is correct.  Anyone who deludes themselves into believing they are teaching anything with a pseudo-science curriculum like the one published by Ham is doing their children a terrible disservice.

 

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with what he said. It needs to be said over and over. 

[WishboneDawn]

In my opinion, he does.  I watched a him recently where he begged parents to not teach "that creationism hogwash" to their children as it just isn't scientific, "teach them evolution because it is true!" he touted.

 

To me, this is extreme.  To say, "Make sure your kids understand the theory of evolution" would make him not extreme.

 

i don't mind the hogwash claim but the, "because it's true!" one bothers me. Science doesn't make truth claims and that kind of language only muddies the water when people coming from a religious understanding of truth try to understand the theory. 

 

I'm with That Homeschool Dad on evolution, you accept it, you don't believe in it. Sloppy language shouldn't be tolerated.

[Leav97]

In my opinion, he does.  I watched a him recently where he begged parents to not teach "that creationism hogwash" to their children as it just isn't scientific, "teach them evolution because it is true!" he touted.

 

To me, this is extreme.  To say, "Make sure your kids understand the theory of evolution" would make him not extreme.

 

If you're going to use quotation marks, please actually quote him.

 

 

 

Denial of evolution is unique to the United States. I mean, we're the world's most advanced technological—I mean, you could say Japan—but generally, the United States is where most of the innovations still happens. People still move to the United States. And that's largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everybody back, really. 

 

Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.

 

As my old professor, Carl Sagan, said, "When you're in love you want to tell the world." So, once in a while I get people that really—or that claim—they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is "Well, why not? Really, why not?" Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent. 

 

And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems. 

 

It's just really hard a thing, it's really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I'm sure, will be, it just won't exist. There's no evidence for it. 

[Bug's Mom]

[Saddlemomma]

The wording is a bit harsh, but his stance that creationism is NOT a science is correct.  Anyone who deludes themselves into believing they are teaching anything with a pseudo-science curriculum like the one published by Ham is doing their children a terrible disservice.

 

Actually, next year I'll be teaching my DD Discovering Intelligent Design: A Journey Into the Scientific Evidence. http://discoveringid.org/curriculum/

 

Since ID is based upon the same deductive reasoning (Aristotelian logic) method used by Darwin to develop his theory, and Darwin's theory is considered scientific by all who employ it, I will feel confident that I'm teaching an actual science class and not deluding myself.

 

Also, since Darwin's theory cannot be reproduced (Darwin never changed one species into a new species in a lab - nor have we) or observed in action (Darwin never observed one species changing into another new species - like an ape into a man or fish into a reptile-finch beaks don't count because they remained finches despite their beaks-nor have we), or tested (we still don't have a new species that scientists have observed evolving - fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria is still bacteria) he inferred conclusions based upon observations of animal physiology and behavior, as well as from the existing fossil record of that time.

 

ID scientists do the same thing, plus more now that we have more advanced technology, a more extensive fossil record, and a deeper understanding of the mechanics of organisms, DNA/RNA, cell structure, and irreducible complexity. They just arrive at a different conclusion for the resulting information than Darwin.  Doesn't make their observations any less scientific.  Unless you want to deem Darwin's methods as unscientific.  Then I would have to agree unless ID scientists changed their methods.

 

As I stated earlier, I believe in evolution (small adaptations within a species which is observable), but not Darwinian evolution (one species morphing into a new species). I believe ID makes the most logical sense based upon the information we have.  Everyone else is entitled to a different opinion, but I wouldn't call them deluded for disagreeing with my opinion.

[TracyP]

Saddlemomma, I prefer to use science books that were written by scientists, so I wouldn't use the same curricula as you. (Even though as a Christian, I have no "problem" with the idea that God had a hand in evolution. It just isn't where the science is.) But what you are talking about teaching is not even on the same playing field with what Ken Ham is teaching. In fact, I believe he would have some very harsh words for a "compromiser" like you.

 

 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually, next year I'll be teaching my DD Discovering Intelligent Design: A Journey Into the Scientific Evidence. http://discoveringid.org/curriculum/

 

Since ID is based upon the same deductive reasoning (Aristotelian logic) method used by Darwin to develop his theory, and Darwin's theory is considered scientific by all who employ it, I will feel confident that I'm teaching an actual science class and not deluding myself.

 

Also, since Darwin's theory cannot be reproduced (Darwin never changed one species into a new species in a lab - nor have we) or observed in action (Darwin never observed one species changing into another new species - like an ape into a man or fish into a reptile-finch beaks don't count because they remained finches despite their beaks-nor have we), or tested (we still don't have a new species that scientists have observed evolving - fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria is still bacteria) he inferred conclusions based upon observations of animal physiology and behavior, as well as from the existing fossil record of that time.

 

ID scientists do the same thing, plus more now that we have more advanced technology, a more extensive fossil record, and a deeper understanding of the mechanics of organisms, DNA/RNA, cell structure, and irreducible complexity. They just arrive at a different conclusion for the resulting information than Darwin.  Doesn't make their observations any less scientific.  Unless you want to deem Darwin's methods as unscientific.  Then I would have to agree unless ID scientists changed their methods.

 

As I stated earlier, I believe in evolution (small adaptations within a species which is observable), but not Darwinian evolution (one species morphing into a new species). I believe ID makes the most logical sense based upon the information we have.  Everyone else is entitled to a different opinion, but I wouldn't call them deluded for disagreeing with my opinion.

 

 Ken Ham and his kind would consider your science curriculum to be against the word of God, and would be quite vocal in telling you so.

 

I can say that based on your post your understanding of evolution and science is, at best, limited.

 

[Leav97]

Actually, next year I'll be teaching my DD Discovering Intelligent Design: A Journey Into the Scientific Evidence. http://discoveringid.org/curriculum/

 

Since ID is based upon the same deductive reasoning (Aristotelian logic) method used by Darwin to develop his theory, and Darwin's theory is considered scientific by all who employ it, I will feel confident that I'm teaching an actual science class and not deluding myself.

 

Also, since Darwin's theory cannot be reproduced (Darwin never changed one species into a new species in a lab - nor have we) or observed in action (Darwin never observed one species changing into another new species - like an ape into a man or fish into a reptile-finch beaks don't count because they remained finches despite their beaks-nor have we), or tested (we still don't have a new species that scientists have observed evolving - fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria is still bacteria) he inferred conclusions based upon observations of animal physiology and behavior, as well as from the existing fossil record of that time.

 

ID scientists do the same thing, plus more now that we have more advanced technology, a more extensive fossil record, and a deeper understanding of the mechanics of organisms, DNA/RNA, cell structure, and irreducible complexity. They just arrive at a different conclusion for the resulting information than Darwin.  Doesn't make their observations any less scientific.  Unless you want to deem Darwin's methods as unscientific.  Then I would have to agree unless ID scientists changed their methods.

 

As I stated earlier, I believe in evolution (small adaptations within a species which is observable), but not Darwinian evolution (one species morphing into a new species). I believe ID makes the most logical sense based upon the information we have.  Everyone else is entitled to a different opinion, but I wouldn't call them deluded for disagreeing with my opinion.

 

When your conclusion requires something that can not be tested you are outside the realm of science.

[mommymilkies]

Actually, next year I'll be teaching my DD Discovering Intelligent Design: A Journey Into the Scientific Evidence. http://discoveringid.org/curriculum/

 

Since ID is based upon the same deductive reasoning (Aristotelian logic) method used by Darwin to develop his theory, and Darwin's theory is considered scientific by all who employ it, I will feel confident that I'm teaching an actual science class and not deluding myself.

 

Also, since Darwin's theory cannot be reproduced (Darwin never changed one species into a new species in a lab - nor have we) or observed in action (Darwin never observed one species changing into another new species - like an ape into a man or fish into a reptile-finch beaks don't count because they remained finches despite their beaks-nor have we), or tested (we still don't have a new species that scientists have observed evolving - fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria is still bacteria) he inferred conclusions based upon observations of animal physiology and behavior, as well as from the existing fossil record of that time.

 

ID scientists do the same thing, plus more now that we have more advanced technology, a more extensive fossil record, and a deeper understanding of the mechanics of organisms, DNA/RNA, cell structure, and irreducible complexity. They just arrive at a different conclusion for the resulting information than Darwin.  Doesn't make their observations any less scientific.  Unless you want to deem Darwin's methods as unscientific.  Then I would have to agree unless ID scientists changed their methods.

 

As I stated earlier, I believe in evolution (small adaptations within a species which is observable), but not Darwinian evolution (one species morphing into a new species). I believe ID makes the most logical sense based upon the information we have.  Everyone else is entitled to a different opinion, but I wouldn't call them deluded for disagreeing with my opinion.

I'm not trying to convert you from your beliefs.  I just have a book recommendation by a scientist and Christian: The Language of God.  It's a good read.  I recommend it. 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Even the Vatican astronomers don't buy ID. The Vatican...the one in Rome...not exactly a lefty hotbed by any measure. Well, there is the caveat that Pope B. up and fired the guy in 2005 for buckinv the party line, but it says something when a guy who is near the top of his chosen profession, working at the Vatican itself, which for a priest must be a seriously plum gig, THAT guy says ID is on the wrong track, and that faith and science can coexist:

 

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

 

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

 

(nbcnews.com)

[Saddlemomma]

 Ken Ham and his kind would consider your science curriculum to be against the word of God, and would be quite vocal in telling you so.

 

I can say that based on your post your understanding of evolution and science is, at best, limited.

 

Hence the reason why I usually don't participate in these threads.  It didn't take long for smug arrogance and judgments of ignorance and/or lack of intelligence to appear.  Kind of proves my earlier point.  

 

BTW, I don't really care what anyone else thinks of my opinion; least of all Ken Ham or Bill Nye.

[LibraryLover]

I think Bill Nye should give Ham the attention he deserves. None.

 

 

 

I used to think that, but no longer.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Even the Vatican astronomers don't buy ID. The Vatican...the one in Rome...not exactly a lefty hotbed by any measure. Well, there is the caveat that Pope B. up and fired the guy in 2005 for buckinv the party line, but it says something when a guy who is near the top of his chosen profession, working at the Vatican itself, which for a priest must be a seriously plum gig, THAT guy says ID is on the wrong track, and that faith and science can coexist:

 

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

 

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

 

(nbcnews.com)

I think I also recall Pope B. saying that the Bible is not a science book. Also, if I recall correctly, Darwin's theory never stated anything about how life was began anything about God. Evolution only speaks to how life evolved from my simplistic understanding. Believing in both evolution and God who created us (through the big bang and evolution IMO) is most definitely possible and not illogical.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

How did I not find this gem from NdGT before?

 

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

-- Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

That right there is bumper sticker material.

[itsheresomewhere]

If only Ben Stein was the moderator.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I just stumbled on an excellent piece in The Guardian that is quite even-handed. On my phone, so sorry for the long link:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/nov/14/religion-darwinbicentenary

[TracyP]

Hence the reason why I usually don't participate in these threads.  It didn't take long for smug arrogance and judgments of ignorance and/or lack of intelligence to appear.  Kind of proves my earlier point.  

 

BTW, I don't really care what anyone else thinks of my opinion; least of all Ken Ham or Bill Nye.

 

I have to say, you have me confused. You don't like to participate in these threads, yet you started one just 2 weeks ago???? It seems to me like you want very much to participate. You just don't want to have anybody disagree with you. A simple pointing out of fact (your understanding of evolution is limited) makes you defensive.

 

BTW, I watched the video and I considered responding, but I decided it just wasn't worth it. I wasted an 1:20 of my day. I was very disappointed to see that it was just a rehashing of "it couldn't just happen". I will be :bigear: when they get around to that science they promised.

[TracyP]

I just stumbled on an excellent piece in The Guardian that is quite even-handed. On my phone, so sorry for the long link:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/nov/14/religion-darwinbicentenary

 

Interesting points. Thanks!

[TGHEALTHYMOM]

I prefer Kent Hovind

[HRAAB]

I prefer Kent Hovind

 

Are you being serious or sarcastic?  I honestly don't know.

[Amy in NH]

Hence the reason why I usually don't participate in these threads.  It didn't take long for smug arrogance and judgments of ignorance and/or lack of intelligence to appear.  Kind of proves my earlier point.  

 

BTW, I don't really care what anyone else thinks of my opinion; least of all Ken Ham or Bill Nye.

 

Someone pointing out a lack of understanding is not displaying smug arrogance.

 

And if you didn't care then you wouldn't keep from participating in these conversations.

[Ipsey]

I prefer Kent Hovind

 

That was my thought to, Ishki. I'm not sure if this is meant to be funny or not.

 

Kent Hovind happens to be my favorite creationist too because he just defies all belief. Truly a piece of work.

 

He's in federal prison on 58 federal counts of . . . something to do with being a scam artist, and money bad-doings, essentially. :)

 

What I love most is his "dissertation" from a diploma mill.

 

http://wlstorage.net/file/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

 

If this man thinks his disseration relates remotely to science (of course, I can't tell if its supposed to, since it doesn't have an actual title), that clearly helps me to understand the mind we're working with here.

 

His introduction (of his disseration!!) starts out with, "Hello, my  name is Kent Hovind. I'm a creationist/science evangelist." and there's no reference page because (wait for it) he has no citations! 

 

It's hilarious. 

[mommymilkies]

LOL..or how about Howard Stern?

Ok. I'd watch that one.

[flyingiguana]

Actually, next year I'll be teaching my DD Discovering Intelligent Design: A Journey Into the Scientific Evidence. http://discoveringid.org/curriculum/

 

Since ID is based upon the same deductive reasoning (Aristotelian logic) method used by Darwin to develop his theory, and Darwin's theory is considered scientific by all who employ it, I will feel confident that I'm teaching an actual science class and not deluding myself.

 

Also, since Darwin's theory cannot be reproduced (Darwin never changed one species into a new species in a lab - nor have we) or observed in action (Darwin never observed one species changing into another new species - like an ape into a man or fish into a reptile-finch beaks don't count because they remained finches despite their beaks-nor have we), or tested (we still don't have a new species that scientists have observed evolving - fruit flies are still fruit flies and bacteria is still bacteria) he inferred conclusions based upon observations of animal physiology and behavior, as well as from the existing fossil record of that time.

 

ID scientists do the same thing, plus more now that we have more advanced technology, a more extensive fossil record, and a deeper understanding of the mechanics of organisms, DNA/RNA, cell structure, and irreducible complexity. They just arrive at a different conclusion for the resulting information than Darwin.  Doesn't make their observations any less scientific.  Unless you want to deem Darwin's methods as unscientific.  Then I would have to agree unless ID scientists changed their methods.

 

As I stated earlier, I believe in evolution (small adaptations within a species which is observable), but not Darwinian evolution (one species morphing into a new species). I believe ID makes the most logical sense based upon the information we have.  Everyone else is entitled to a different opinion, but I wouldn't call them deluded for disagreeing with my opinion.

 

A quick google of : speciation event observed brings up

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html  (lots of references)

 

(I also don't understand why *Darwin* had to observe a speciation event for it to be true.)

 

Darwin is not the be all and end all of the scientific method, by the way.  Just because he did or didn't do something, that doesn't mean the evolution theory is disproved. 

 

[albeto.]

A quick google of : speciation event observed brings up

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html  (lots of references)

 

(I also don't understand why *Darwin* had to observe a speciation event for it to be true.)

 

Darwin is not the be all and end all of the scientific method, by the way.  Just because he did or didn't do something, that doesn't mean the evolution theory is disproved. 

 

 

 

The idea that "ID is based upon the same deductive reasoning (Aristotelian logic) method used by Darwin to develop his theory" has been soundly challenged and debunked, most dramatically in the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in Pennsylvania over the legitimacy of teaching intelligent design as science. A crucial piece of the defense (pro-intelligent design) was a book called "Of Pandas and People" which was marketed as a science textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous copies of the book were subpoenaed for review. It was demonstrated that, whenever previous versions of the book had the terms "creationist" or "creationism" or some similar form, it had been replaced in almost all cases with the terms "design proponents" and "intelligent design" in later editions. This was discovered when one book had the term "cdesign proponentsists" left in print. The publishers had clearly edited the book by doing a simple "find/replace" script, replacing "creationists" with "design proponents." Except this time when the first term wasn't erased before replacing the second. So no, this isn't the same tactic Darwin used. One can watch the NOVA episode,

for more information. 

 

Also, Darwin's findings were the physical evidence that locked the theory of evolution. It was a valid theory of science, gaining strength in the scientific community, but Charles Darwin provided the evidence to solidify it. Interestingly, Alfred Russel Wallace did the same thing in the South Pacific. He sent his findings to Darwin to get his opinion, inspiring Darwin to publish what he'd been sitting on for a long time.

 

No, Darwin is not the be all and end all of the scientific method, he is but one scientist in one field who utilized the methodology to gain understanding about the natural world. It's just that this particular discovery was of enormous importance and consequence. Creationists refer to the bible to gain understanding about the natural world, as AiG admits in their statement of faith. As this is precisely the kind of methodology (appeal to divine revelation) that the scientific method avoids, the idea that creationism uses the scientific method is untrue. 

[msrift]

It looks like they are going to stream the debate. Anybody feeling creative? You could liven up the debate by making one of those keyword bingo games to accompany it. (Or maybe a drinking game instead. :coolgleamA: )

[LucyStoner]

It looks like they are going to stream the debate. Anybody feeling creative? You could liven up the debate by making one of those keyword bingo games to accompany it. (Or maybe a drinking game instead. :coolgleamA: )

Someone needs to turn it into a music video.

[Momling]

I read an interesting article on why the debate is a terrible idea: http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham# 

I'll copy and paste here:

 

Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham

by Dan Arel posted on January 16, 2014 05:38PM GMT

 

Scientists should not debate creationists. Period. This may sound harsh but let's start by looking at what sparked this statement. TV personality and science advocate Bill Nye (Bill Nye the Science Guy) has accepted an invitation to debate Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis / The Creation Museum on February 4, 2014 at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

 

This is a bad idea and here is why.

 

 

Debating creationists offer their position credibility

 

When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to achieve such problems. Debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.

 

Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus.  Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

 

Why would a scientist debate this? Nye would do more good on his own going on TV and discussing evolution and the importance of scientific education instead of giving Ken Ham any publicity and a public forum with thousands, if not millions of viewers, to spew his dishonesty. Ham is a snake oil salesmen and Nye just offered him up an infomercial to sell his product. Ham can repeat his mantra over and over; “teach the controversyâ€.

 

Nye is not a biologist

 

I do not know an incredible amount about Bill Nye other than I loved his show. However, a Google search only turned up that Nye has nothing more than a bachelor’s degree in engineering and three honorary doctorate degrees. We fault Christian apologists almost daily for trying to ride their honorary degrees, it would seem only fair we hold Nye to the same standard.

 

So we have Nye, a very smart man with a degree in engineering, not biology, not anthropology, and he does not practice any form of research science. Nye should be credited greatly for his work in education; but as a qualified candidate to defend evolution, especially against the likes of conmen like Ken Ham, he is not.

 

You must fully understand your opponent

 

This is mere speculation but I have no reason to believe that Nye has the firm grasp on creationism that would be needed to go up against the likes of someone like Ham.

 

To win a debate successfully you must understand your opponent's position better than they do, in fact, you should know it well enough that you could debate for them.

 

Creationists have no rules, their dishonesty stops nowhere. Nye will attempt to use proper science and reason to bring down Ham, but Ham will care little for any facts or evidence and will stick to nonsense and will feed on audience ignorance and use terms like "irreducible complexity" to confuse the watchers into thinking he has made a valid point. Key phrases like “half a wing†will fly from his lips as he openly ignores science's amazing understanding of the evolution of things like the eye, or wings. Ham will be relying on faith and pushing the biblical teachings onto the viewers and will attempt to call out anytime science could have been wrong to tear down its credibility.

 

This debate is being held at the Creation Museum itself and this will ensure that the brain-dead creationist zombies come out in droves to support Ham and loudly applaud anytime he manages to string together and coherent sentence, or even more likely shouts that his grandmother was no monkey.

 

I honestly think it would be fantastic to see Nye destroy Ham, but will that do any good? Suddenly a little known figure outside of his circles, Ham will be thrust into the spotlight, reaching impressionable youths around the world, and as great as it would be to see him taken down, the risks of him winning are greater.

 

The American people are not going to dissect Nye’s credentials to accept such a debate and if he goes down, he will take down a lot of hard work in science with him. If the American people, who are already weary of science and already disown the idea of evolution as quickly as possible, see who in their minds is a top scientist lose to a creationist, we will have taken steps backwards in time.

 

The risk versus reward in this scenario is not worth it. Nye is putting a lot at risk and he is not the man to do so.

 

Creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and Nye is about to treat it as an equal, debatable “controversyâ€.

 

Dan Arel is a freelance writer, speaker and secular advocate residing in San Diego, CA. He writes on secular and humanist values on subjects such as secular parenting, church and state separation, education reform and secularism in public policy.  Follow Dan on Twitter @danarel.

 

 

[Cricket]

According to some polls, almost half of all Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form. If that is the case, I'm not exactly sure why scientists wouldn't want to get their side out there.  I can understand wanting different people in the debate, but to ignore the issue altogether because the other side deserves no such attention is really stupid.  It's not like Ken Ham is the only one who believes these things.  Aren't the followers of Ken Ham the ones scientists really need to explain things to?  They would hardly watch a TV show on evolution.  And then to use the excuse that Ken Ham might win?  Good grief.

 

 

I read an interesting article on why the debate is a terrible idea: http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham#

I'll copy and paste here:

 

Why Bill Nye shouldn't debate Ken Ham

by Dan Arel posted on January 16, 2014 05:38PM GMT

 

Scientists should not debate creationists. Period. This may sound harsh but let's start by looking at what sparked this statement. TV personality and science advocate Bill Nye (Bill Nye the Science Guy) has accepted an invitation to debate Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis / The Creation Museum on February 4, 2014 at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

 

This is a bad idea and here is why.

 

 

Debating creationists offer their position credibility

 

When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to achieve such problems. Debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.

 

Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus.  Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

 

Why would a scientist debate this? Nye would do more good on his own going on TV and discussing evolution and the importance of scientific education instead of giving Ken Ham any publicity and a public forum with thousands, if not millions of viewers, to spew his dishonesty. Ham is a snake oil salesmen and Nye just offered him up an infomercial to sell his product. Ham can repeat his mantra over and over; “teach the controversyâ€.

 

Nye is not a biologist

 

I do not know an incredible amount about Bill Nye other than I loved his show. However, a Google search only turned up that Nye has nothing more than a bachelor’s degree in engineering and three honorary doctorate degrees. We fault Christian apologists almost daily for trying to ride their honorary degrees, it would seem only fair we hold Nye to the same standard.

 

So we have Nye, a very smart man with a degree in engineering, not biology, not anthropology, and he does not practice any form of research science. Nye should be credited greatly for his work in education; but as a qualified candidate to defend evolution, especially against the likes of conmen like Ken Ham, he is not.

 

You must fully understand your opponent

 

This is mere speculation but I have no reason to believe that Nye has the firm grasp on creationism that would be needed to go up against the likes of someone like Ham.

 

To win a debate successfully you must understand your opponent's position better than they do, in fact, you should know it well enough that you could debate for them.

 

Creationists have no rules, their dishonesty stops nowhere. Nye will attempt to use proper science and reason to bring down Ham, but Ham will care little for any facts or evidence and will stick to nonsense and will feed on audience ignorance and use terms like "irreducible complexity" to confuse the watchers into thinking he has made a valid point. Key phrases like “half a wing†will fly from his lips as he openly ignores science's amazing understanding of the evolution of things like the eye, or wings. Ham will be relying on faith and pushing the biblical teachings onto the viewers and will attempt to call out anytime science could have been wrong to tear down its credibility.

 

This debate is being held at the Creation Museum itself and this will ensure that the brain-dead creationist zombies come out in droves to support Ham and loudly applaud anytime he manages to string together and coherent sentence, or even more likely shouts that his grandmother was no monkey.

 

I honestly think it would be fantastic to see Nye destroy Ham, but will that do any good? Suddenly a little known figure outside of his circles, Ham will be thrust into the spotlight, reaching impressionable youths around the world, and as great as it would be to see him taken down, the risks of him winning are greater.

 

The American people are not going to dissect Nye’s credentials to accept such a debate and if he goes down, he will take down a lot of hard work in science with him. If the American people, who are already weary of science and already disown the idea of evolution as quickly as possible, see who in their minds is a top scientist lose to a creationist, we will have taken steps backwards in time.

 

The risk versus reward in this scenario is not worth it. Nye is putting a lot at risk and he is not the man to do so.

 

Creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and Nye is about to treat it as an equal, debatable “controversyâ€.

 

Dan Arel is a freelance writer, speaker and secular advocate residing in San Diego, CA. He writes on secular and humanist values on subjects such as secular parenting, church and state separation, education reform and secularism in public policy.  Follow Dan on Twitter @danarel.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

According to some polls, almost half of all Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form. If that is the case, I'm not exactly sure why scientists wouldn't want to get their side out there.  I can understand wanting different people in the debate, but to ignore the issue altogether because the other side deserves no such attention is really stupid.  It's not like Ken Ham is the only one who believes these things.  Aren't the followers of Ken Ham the ones scientists really need to explain things to?  They would hardly watch a TV show on evolution.  And then to use the excuse that Ken Ham might win?  Good grief.

 

Anyone following Ken Ham has already thrown logic and reason out the window. 

[Cricket]

Personally, I would like to see a debate between someone like Ham and a Christian scientist who accepts evolution.  I think that is why Ham is so successful. He has turned the creation issue into a salvation issue.  Someone who knows theology as well as science would be better equipped to debate the issue as Ham sees it.

[Farrar]

I'm torn about this.  On the one hand, I have respect for Bill Nye's dedication to serving as a sort of scientific ambassador to Americans - all Americans - to try and explain why science is right.  So many Americans don't accept evolution or the scientifically estimated age of the earth and I agree that just dismissing them really isn't helpful - it just increases the gap between both sides.  Not only that, but I've learned from reading threads here that there is often a great misunderstanding about the actual scientific theories involved - they are greatly misrepresented by Ham and other creationists.

 

But on the other hand, I think there's no way he can win this debate.  Dh and I were discussing this with the kids and we did a fake debate about whether or not the table we were sitting at is made of wood to illustrate how pointless we think the whole conversation may be.  The whole debate between dh and I was just dh giving evidence about the table - the grain of the wood, the color, the stain the behavior, the history of when it came from and where we bought it, the fact that we can see it under the microscope and examine the composition... and me going, "It's fake.  It was made to look that way.  You've been fooled.  That doesn't matter."  The kids laughed, but I really think, in the end, that's going to be the gist of this thing.  Of course, I'm sure Ham will make his side sound more credible than that, but in the end, what's the point of arguing with someone who refuses to accept any of your evidence?

 

Plus, it just sets it up to look like there are two equal sides and that "science" represented by Nye, accepts that there are two equal sides.  But the sides are not equal.  One side has lots of evidence.  The other side has no evidence, just faith.

[albeto.]

Personally, I would like to see a debate between someone like Ham and a Christian scientist who accepts evolution.  I think that is why Ham is so successful. He has turned the creation issue into a salvation issue.  Someone who knows theology as well as science would be better equipped to debate the issue as Ham sees it.

 

To what end? In what measure should faith have a part in the role of explaining biodiversity on earth? The facts speak for themselves, and all that is necessary is one who knows the facts. Ken Ham is the scientific equivalent of Westboro Baptist Church - using fear of damnation and guilt of rejecting sweet Jesus instead of big signs and catchy slogans, but he is doing the same thing. They trying to "warn" people that if they don't read and believe the bible as it's written word for word, God will damn them and send them to hell. A Christian scientist would be of no more interest to Ken Ham than a Christian preacher would be to Fred Phelps. Theology has no place in a scientific discussion, and Ham has no interest listening to information. He points out in his statement of faith that he follows the word of scripture, full stop. Bill Nye will not be talking to Ken Ham, but to young people who are questioning the arguably bizarre tales they've been encouraged to believe are real.