BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[Esquilax]

I would have liked to see Nye go after Ham's absurd distinction between science done in the present versus science regarding the past.

The particularly frustrating thing about that is that the rebuttal is entirely obvious: just accept Ham's distinction and move on from there.

Just go with it, so that now we've got two claims of "historical science" from two distinct camps, both on equal footing, something Ham wouldn't have the wherewithal to disagree with. Surely he'd agree with the idea that things that happened in the past leave traces into the present, it'd be absurd not to. All Nye has to do is remind the audience that these traces are evidence, and given that we've now got two claims from historical science, that evidence can be used to add weight to one, the other, or neither.

Not only does this get the debate back on track and away from Ham's diversionary handwaving, it's a relatively simple matter to show that the majority of the evidence agrees with one historical science claim, and not the other.

[Mister Agenda]

Personally, I hate censorship.

You regard not including bullshit in science textbooks as censorship?

You do not see the difference between empirical science and historical science? Really?

You don't see that they're both science? Really?

---

LOL dog kind and cat kind.

I thought it was funny when he showed Family Felidae as 'cat kind'. It includes civets and hyenas.

---

...and Ham spoke on the "different species of dogs". Different species? They're all the same species but different breeds.

He was referring to 'dog kind', which apparently includes foxes and jackals.

[Minimalist]

Surely he'd agree with the idea that things that happened in the past leave traces into the present, it'd be absurd not to.

YECs have never minded being absurd, Esq.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I think he said there isn't really a distinction, because the things we observe today are the same things that happened in the past, but he didn't go into great detail about it.

Yeah that answer just plays into Ham's spin.

Quite. He should've explained that if we only relied on seeing things happening to acquire knowledge, we wouldn't know any history and we wouldn't be able to solve any crimes. We aren't relying on things happening now and assuming that it has always happened. The general consensus of the early earth is quite different than what it is now. But to be fair it's always a lot easier to come up with better rebuttals after the confrontation.

[Whateverist]

For that matter, how do we know that testing hypotheses in the present will lead to reliable technology in the future. (The utilitarian benefits of science seem to be all that Ham recognizes as worthy of science.) In the future, what we noted in the past could all have been the deception of the devil. The world may in fact be no more than a few seconds old with its seeming age like our seeming memories nothing but illusion. At any point in time, the past becomes suspect and opaque to science to hear Ham tell it.

[Angrboda]

Speaking to Morgan's point, that is one area where Nye simply failed. His points were all couched in terms that adults familiar with the material could understand, but the audience he meant to address would have totally not understood the point he was trying to make. Nye has experience communicating science to child-like minds. Why didn't he use it?

Ham's points were simpler and easier to understand. His slides were professional and appealing. Most every slide of Ham's was a caricature of Ham or Nye, or a professionally drawn illustration. Nye used a bunch of stock photos with hard to read captions, most of which didn't, in and of themselves, make the point he was illustrating. Ham was just more polished. And as noted, Nye tried to cram a lot into a little space, instead of making a little very accessible. And while Nye tried, Ham's opening put him in the position of trying to counter philosophy with science, and he didn't do a good job at that. For his part, it appeared that Nye knew it was coming, and just chose to take the battle elsewhere. Maybe he was right in not assailing Ham's philosophical points, but it left Ham alone on the field to portray creationists as an unfairly oppressed constituency.

Nye's response to the redefinition argument, using forensic science as an example, was a good approach. But he never made it accessible to his audience. He introduced it, and just assumed that his audience understood his point. I understood his point, but I imagine the bulk of his audience — his real audience, those sympathetic to creationism and wanting to defend their religion — would have had no idea as to why he was talking about a television crime show. That's a classic public speaking mistake: Know your audience and speak directly to them. In that sense, Nye's whole performance was flawed.

Probably what surprised me and gladdened me most was Nye's willingness and enthusiasm in embracing the answer, "I don't know." For those who are frightened of not knowing, Ham's message of eternal certainty is always going to win out. But for those religious minds that are open to the possibility that not knowing isn't a bad thing, those minds may some day come to the realization of how majestic Nye's "I don't know" is compared to all the Ham's in the world and their "book of everything you need to know."

ETA: Oh, and Esquilax suggests conceding the distinction between historical and observational science. I think that's a mistake, as that will be reused further down the line without a Nye being there to qualify or counter why it is an irrelevant distinction. It might have helped him prosper in the debate, but it would left a lot of young minds vulnerable to such chicanery.

[Whateverist]

All good points. I don't envy him his task in that debate.

[Anomalocaris]

I was going to say it is always a waste of time to debate creationists. But I suppose I would be wasting my breath with people who have the time to waste debating Statler Wardork.

[rexbeccarox]

This makes me sad, and frustrated:

22 Messages from creationists to people who believe in evolution

[Angrboda]

This makes me sad, and frustrated:

22 Messages from creationists to people who believe in evolution

Having questions is never a mistake, even these.