BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[Zen Badger]

I got the impression that the debate was secondary to Nye's main objective. Which was to push the value of objective science to the Christian audience. But at least some of them would have finally gotten a view of evolution and the universe undistorted by the lies of the likes of Ham, Hovind et al.

[Chad32]

Ken didn't seem to give much to the debate, aside from establishing that there are religious scientists, and he believes whatever the bible says. It's annoying when Nye says they should keep looking for answers, and he just jumps to the first sentence in genesis. Genesis makes claims. It doesn't say how anything happened, aside from some being we've never proven speaking things into existence.

Not that I'm surprised that's all he had. Ok. Maybe you could imagine that there weren't quite as many animals on the ark as some of us think. That still doesn't explain what the animals ate while on the ark, how they didn't suffocate or freeze to death, what they ate after getting off the ark, and how everything didn't go crazy from just having tens of thousands of animals crammed into a boat. I know you could say god did it for all that, but it seems rather convoluted. If he was going to put that much effort into keeping things from immediately falling apart, surely he could have thought of something easier.

[Napoléon]

I got the impression that the debate was secondary to Nye's main objective. Which was to push the value of objective science to the Christian audience. But at least some of them would have finally gotten a view of evolution and the universe undistorted by the lies of the likes of Ham, Hovind et al.

Well I think that's the best thing Nye could have done. The debate about Ham's view of the world and whether it is viable has been over for hundreds of years. The 'debate', in reality, shouldn't even have happened, as it gives a bumfuck like Ham the same platform as someone like Nye. That's just plain wrong and leads people in the audience to think that these are two comparable scientists (hell one of these guys simply isn't a scientist). Nye's main objective should have never been about disproving anything Ham says, or indeed debating him, rather it should have been telling the audience about science and actually educating those out there who simply haven't had the chance to be properly educated. This in turn might make those people go out there and discover the truth for themselves, rather than have them be brainwashed by their creationist parents.

[DeistPaladin]

I'm embarrassed to say I fell asleep when Ham started his rebuttal (I'm not even joking) I'll have to watch it again

Oh, it was a truly awesome rebuttal, buttressed with unassailable facts and filled with brilliant, never-before thought of observations. Currently, it's rocked the scientific community which is now in the process of completely reconsidering everything we think we know about Biology. It inspired me to run down to the nearest church where I fell upon my knees and begged the Lord Jesus for forgiveness in ever doubting the revealed word.

Praise the sweet name of Jesus.

...

...

No, not really.

[Fruity]

It's pretty basic. Nye was there to teach science. Ham was there to preach. End.

I have to say, though, I loved every one of Nye's "by the way" moments.

[Whateverist]

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

Also it would have been nice to challenge whether science based on other religion's creation stories should receive as much time in the science classroom as his own.

Of course these go after the essential unsoundness of his ideas rather than the science itself. But obviously he wanted to keep his points in the area where he feels buttressed by his acknowledged expertise. It does show that science alone isn't enough to rebut bad ideas. If you allow his past/present distinction he gets away with making his lunatic version of science look respectable.

[Clueless Morgan]

I could only watch the first hour so I got 40 minutes of bullshittin' Ham and only 20 minutes of Nye's talk. I came back for the last 20 minutes or so where it seemed that Ham was getting creamed, but I have no idea how Nye did the rest of the time so... I guess I need to rewatch.

From what I did see, though, it seemed like Ham's tactics were to redefine words to suit himself, make distinctions where no distinctions are made (observational versus historical science? WTF?), and to repeat key words and ideas in order to reinforce to his audience what they already think: science is a religion, scientists are trying to indoctrinate children into the religion of science, etc.

Frankly, I think this is a decent tactic for Ham to take, and one Nye used on his show, BNtSG - repeat important information or concepts over and over in order to instill them into the audience's minds and increase the opportunity for the audience to remember the information or concept. This was the tactic I was hoping Nye would employ; yes Nye needs to educate the audience on the science and the evidence, but using the tactic of repeating concepts and arguments, especially his strongest, most persuasive concepts and arguments, would have been a great approach.

In that respect, even though I wasn't able to watch the whole thing, I think Ham had the "winning" approach, even though he was shooting fish in a barrel.

I also felt really bad for Nye; that was a flagrantly hostile audience and even his lamest "this always gets at least a chuckle" type jokes fell flat.

---

So when I hear Creationists go on about 'kind' they are talking about genus, not species? They're never very specific.

I thought that Ham was saying (in his 30-minute opener) that "Kind" was equivalent to "Family" in the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species lineup. Maybe I misunderstood his meaning, that wouldn't be hard to do.

Ken Ham:
Delusional or Con Artist?

Delusional.

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

It would have been a great move on Nye's part to do 20-minutes for his opener and save 10 minutes for rebutting the stupidity Ham threw out in his opener. This would have been contingent on his skills off-script, though.

Not having seen the end of Nye's opening 30 I don't know if he did this.

Also it would have been nice to challenge whether science based on other religion's creation stories should receive as much time in the science classroom as his own.

Ham would have side-stepped this like he side-stepped the Q&A question about what it would take to change his mind.

Of course these go after the essential unsoundness of his ideas rather than the science itself. But obviously he wanted to keep his points in the area where he feels buttressed by his acknowledged expertise. It does show that science alone isn't enough to rebut bad ideas. If you allow his past/present distinction he gets away with making his lunatic version of science look respectable.

Yes. Nye needed to address this. Apparently he didn't(?).

Off to look the debate up on youtube to fill in the missed parts.

[Whateverist]

If you allow his past/present distinction he gets away with making his lunatic version of science look respectable.

Yes. Nye needed to address this. Apparently he didn't(?).

Off to look the debate up on youtube to fill in the missed parts.

(That's where I saw it.) If Nye addressed it I missed it or he just didn't do it in a way I thought was called for.

[Chad32]

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.

[Whateverist]

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.