ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Sometimes I think the same way about hate groups (roll wih my metaphor for a sec). If no one shows up to counter protest an issue (pick one), then the event gets less press and deflates the message, which is good. It's the ignore your teasing sibling method parents have advocated for abouqt forever. On thie flip side, this is science, often funded at the whim of officials, who make policy based on constituent expectations. That NIH funding in Bethesda could be cut because of religious belief in Texas (insert any other of your choice) means the ripple effects extend beyond geographic and demographic boundaries, and THAT's why this is a worthy issue. Evolution might be the poster subject, but the way a people views, and funds, and ues science is the real issue with civilazation-altering consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I don't feel like Bill Nye is riding honorary degrees. I've never heard him refer to himself as Dr. Nye. He's billed as "The Science Guy" on the publicity photo. I don't feel like he's vying for prestige. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 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. I agree... Except that to some people in the audience in does matter. Some people will listen better, with more respect, when they hear someone speaking their language. Someone who shares many of their tenants, but also believes in science and believes that science is not an issue of salvation. And they may be more likely to get the messages about science. I think scientists would like people to see that the explanations of Ham, etc. are carefully crafted nonsense when viewed in light of the scientific evidence. But in reality, I think many people who are swayed about evolution are swayed either because they leave the church and decide that everything in Christianity is nonsense OR they decide that Ham and the creationists have set it up to be religion vs. science and they decide it doesn't have to be that way. A devout Christian, but who is also a scientist may help them see the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 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. I didn't say anything about faith having a role in explaining biodiversity. As a person of faith, *I* am interested in the theological implications of evolution that Ham claims as true. To me, that is where the real debate is. I'm sure that kind of debate wouldn't interest everyone. As far as theology having no place in a scientific discussion, not everyone compartmentalizes subjects. I understand not having preconceived ideas as part of the scientific method when it comes to fact finding but to extrapolate that into theology and science not even belonging in the same conversation? Nothing will ever convince me of that, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I understand not having preconceived ideas as part of the scientific method when it comes to fact finding but to extrapolate that into theology and science not even belonging in the same conversation? Nothing will ever convince me of that, sorry. Not even facts? Would you ignore facts in order to maintain your faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 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. Is there a difference to Ham between a Christian who believes in evolution and an atheist? He has been known to trash Christian theologians who do not agree with him. He makes his living by telling people what they want to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Not even facts? Would you ignore facts in order to maintain your faith? Who said anything about ignoring facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Dp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Who said anything about ignoring facts? You said that as a person of faith, you are interested in the theological implications of evolution that Ham claims as true. That to you, that is where the real debate is. Fair enough. I think that's an interesting topic as well, and like THD pointed out, a vastly important one in our society to have. However, when talking about the context of whether or not creationism is a valid explanation for the biodiversity we see in nature, as this debate sets out to do, you suggest that not everyone compartmentalizes subjects. Further, you say that nothing will ever convince you that theology and science don't belong in the same conversation. If there were facts that could be presented to you to show how theology and science don't belong in this Ham / Nye conversation, would you ignore them so you can maintain your belief, so you don't have to be convinced of something you don't currently believe in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I agree... Except that to some people in the audience in does matter. Some people will listen better, with more respect, when they hear someone speaking their language. Someone who shares many of their tenants, but also believes in science and believes that science is not an issue of salvation. And they may be more likely to get the messages about science. I think scientists would like people to see that the explanations of Ham, etc. are carefully crafted nonsense when viewed in light of the scientific evidence. But in reality, I think many people who are swayed about evolution are swayed either because they leave the church and decide that everything in Christianity is nonsense OR they decide that Ham and the creationists have set it up to be religion vs. science and they decide it doesn't have to be that way. A devout Christian, but who is also a scientist may help them see the latter. I think most people believe scientists who are also Christian are much less settled about evolution than those scientists actually are. IOW, people think evolution is more of a controversy amongst believing scientists than it really is. Both Ham and the Discovery Institute have played this up, trying to portray evolution as questionable for scientists of faith. They treat it more like politics, with the atheists on one side and the poor Christian scientists bravely resisting them on the other. In actuality, the VAST majority (over 99%) of scientists, both Christian and non-believing, who work in fields directly related to evolution (like biology) accept that evolution happened (common descent with modification) including with humans. There is no controversy, even among Christians who are scientists. There is a handful of outspoken critics, often in fields not directly related, and they get the attention. The rest of Christian biologists and paleotologists just want to keep their heads down and do their research that includes evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann.without.an.e Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I am not confident that either can sport a kilt. Maybe we could vote for Bradley Cooper vs Johnny Depp....more fun, right? :coolgleamA: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I am not confident that either can sport a kilt. Maybe we could vote for Bradley Cooper vs Johnny Depp....more fun, right? :coolgleamA: Bill Nye can not wear a kilt, because, as you can see, is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I think most people believe scientists who are also Christian are much less settled about evolution than those scientists actually are. IOW, people think evolution is more of a controversy amongst believing scientists than it really is. Both Ham and the Discovery Institute have played this up, trying to portray evolution as questionable for scientists of faith. They treat it more like politics, with the atheists on one side and the poor Christian scientists bravely resisting them on the other. In actuality, the VAST majority (over 99%) of scientists, both Christian and non-believing, who work in fields directly related to evolution (like biology) accept that evolution happened (common descent with modification) including with humans. There is no controversy, even among Christians who are scientists. There is a handful of outspoken critics, often in fields not directly related, and they get the attention. The rest of Christian biologists and paleotologists just want to keep their heads down and do their research that includes evolution. But that's all the more reason that a Christian should perhaps be the one most qualified for this debate. I didn't mean to imply such people are rare - I know they're common. Or, as I said before, a reason the debate shouldn't happen at all. Because it implies two equal sides that do not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 But that's all the more reason that a Christian should perhaps be the one most qualified for this debate. I didn't mean to imply such people are rare - I know they're common. Or, as I said before, a reason the debate shouldn't happen at all. Because it implies two equal sides that do not exist. I wouldn't have any scientist debate Ham, Christian or not. A theologian skilled in debate only please. I don't think most of those who believe in creationism do so because they think it's solid science (although they may think that). I think it's generally an issue of faith so argue it on those terms. But also get a cranky, brilliant theologian who can sniff out shifty debate techniques. Because generally these debates are about a creationist making clever remarks to play to his audience and you need someone who will relentlessly skewer the slight of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I wouldn't have any scientist debate Ham, Christian or not. A theologian skilled in debate only please. I don't think most of those who believe in creationism do so because they think it's solid science (although they may think that). I think it's generally an issue of faith so argue it on those terms. But also get a cranky, brilliant theologian who can sniff out shifty debate techniques. Because generally these debates are about a creationist making clever remarks to play to his audience and you need someone who will relentlessly skewer the slight of hand. He didn't want a Theologian. He wanted Bill Nye. Ham has had nasty blog battles with Theologians for years. He didn't invite them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking Squirrels Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Anyone following Ken Ham has already thrown logic and reason out the window. Not necessarily. Several years ago I was a fan of Ken Ham, listened to his podcasts and was planning on using some of his curriculum. I am now Team Bill and you couldn't pay me enough to teach my child from AiG materials. They *can* be reached! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Bill Nye can not wear a kilt, because, as you can see, is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. Zombie Abe Lincoln! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 But that's all the more reason that a Christian should perhaps be the one most qualified for this debate. I didn't mean to imply such people are rare - I know they're common. Or, as I said before, a reason the debate shouldn't happen at all. Because it implies two equal sides that do not exist. Yes, sorry I should have been more clear that I was agreeing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Not necessarily. Several years ago I was a fan of Ken Ham, listened to his podcasts and was planning on using some of his curriculum. I am now Team Bill and you couldn't pay me enough to teach my child from AiG materials. They *can* be reached! Do you mind if I ask, what changed your mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking Squirrels Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Do you mind if I ask, what changed your mind? No one thing in particular and goes rather off topic. But long story short I started getting frustrated and turned off from all the hypocrisy and judgement in my religion and really started questioning my faith. I'm still finding my path but I am now leaning much more toward atheism than Christianity. If you are interested in more details feel free to pm. I don't mind sharing, but I don't want to derail the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahW Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 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. You know who I would love to see debate Ken Ham? David Bentley Hart. That would be a riot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 He didn't want a Theologian. He wanted Bill Nye. Ham has had nasty blog battles with Theologians for years. He didn't invite them. I don't wonder. He doesn't generally come off well in those arenas. He looks for debates where he's arguing apples and oranges so he doesn't actually have to debate and can feed his cheering section methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughing lioness Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 bleah. What's the point beyond a cheap publicity stunt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 You know who I would love to see debate Ken Ham? David Bentley Hart. That would be a riot. Neil deGrasse Tyson, if he could keep a straight face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Neil deGrasse Tyson, if he could keep a straight face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vida Winter Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 It might be interesting to watch but I wouldn't trust either of them to represent my personal views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luanne Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I think Bill Nye should give Ham the attention he deserves. None. He is on my "in real life" ignore list. I don't know that I agree totally with either of these, but I don't think Bill Nye deserves any more attention that Ham does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angie in VA Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I prefer Bill Nighy. Who was in Love Actually, which also starred Martin Freeman (in scenes that are deleted in the tv version, for a good reason!) who is in what popular BBC series??? Say it, Word Nerd! Say it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 That made me so happy. :D I love that man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 That made me so happy. :D I love that man. I adore Neil deGrasse Tyson. We got to hear him speak 2 years ago at the NC Science Festival. We had some extra cash at the time, so we got tickets to a planetarium show that he spoke at and a meet and greet after. My son had a question, and Dr Tyson got down on his knees to be at eye level to answer the question. He's awesome. He'll be speaking there again this year, but I won't be able to make it :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Who was in Love Actually, which also starred Martin Freeman (in scenes that are deleted in the tv version, for a good reason!) who is in what popular BBC series??? Say it, Word Nerd! Say it! In the words of Watson: "SHERRRRRRRRLOOOOOOOOCK!!!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angie in VA Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 In the words of Watson: "SHERRRRRRRRLOOOOOOOOCK!!!!!" Ahhhhh....yes. :) ::Dreamy sigh:: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.