The Creation of Debate

[cbayer]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/05/creationism_debate_should_we_engage_anti_science.html

FEB. 5 2014 1:34 PM

By Phil Plait
Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death from the Skies!


Bill Nye extols science while Ken Ham watches.
Photo by Answers In Genesis, from the YouTube video

Last night, science advocate Bill Nye “debated” with creationist Ken Ham, the man who runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I was torn about the event; I think it’s important that science get its advocacy, but I also worry that by even showing up to such a thing, Nye would elevate the idea of creationism as something worth debating.

But I’ve thought about it, and here’s the important thing to remember: Roughly half the population of America does believe in some form of creationism or another. Half. Given that creationism is provably wrong, and science has enjoyed huge overwhelming success over the years, something is clearly broken in our country.

I suspect that what’s wrong is our messaging. For too long, scientists have thought that facts speak for themselves. They don’t. They need advocates. If we ignore the attacks on science, or simply counter them by reciting facts, we’ll lose. That much is clear from the statistics. Facts and stories of science are great for rallying those already on our side, but they do little to sway believers.

About last night’s debate, my colleague Mark Stern at Slate argues that Nye lost the debate just by showing up, and I see that same sentiment from people on social media. But I disagree. We’ve been losing this debate in the public’s mind all along by not showing up. Sure, science advocates are there when this topic comes up in court, and I’m glad for it. But I think that we need to have more of a voice, and that voice needs to change. What Nye did last night was at least a step in that direction, so in that sense I’m glad he did this.

more at link

[Gothmog]

1. This is another great article

I agree that the only to win this debate is by reframing the debate. The debate cannot be science vs religion but science vs an extremist sect

[cbayer]

2. I've not been able to watch the actual debate, due to connectivity issues,

but I think Bill Nye was a good choice for this.

From what I have read, he did a great job.

Glad you enjoyed the articles.

[Jim__]

3. I agree with the article that the debate was a good idea.

Nye did a lot better than I thought he would. Creationists usually find some new wrinkle - once it was some type of element in the Grand Canyon - that disproves claims about its age. A new wrinkle that the scientist at the podium almost can't be familiar with - the element in the Grand Canyon was raised in a debate with a biologist. That type of thing did not happen in this debate, and I don't think Nye was beaten on a single issue.

The one place where I thought Nye could have done better was on the point about "observational science" and "historical science." Ham claimed that things like the Big Bang are beyond our observation and therefore are outside the scope of "observational science." My recollection of Nye's response was that we are always looking at the past, that the people in the back of the room looked slightly younger than the people at the front. A humorous observation, but it did nothing to rebut Ham. I thought he could have raised, for instance, the fact that the Big Bang has implications for what we observe today and those implications can be checked.

But, I think more debates in the future would be beneficial.

[cbayer]

4. I look forward to watching it when I have a better connection -

hopefully in 2 days.

But I do think Nye's non-confrontational, regular guy approach is probably more approachable than some others.

He doesn't seem like a guy that would be that invested in "winning", except if winning means getting some people to listen and become more receptive.

The author suggests that religionists who embrace science may be best suited to this task.

[pokerfan]

5. The tl;dr summary of the debate

The last question: What would it take to change your mind regarding your position?

Ken Ham: Nothing. I'm a Christian and I have the bible.

Bill Nye: Evidence.

[cbayer]

6. Lol. Perfect.

But unless one is a literalist (like Ham), I think one could believe both to some extent.

Ham? I wonder how many pig jokes he suffered as a child and how it might have effected him.

[LostOne4Ever]

7. I think the debate was a good idea

As the article mentioned, the amount of Americans who believe in creationism show that not debating them is not working. Besides when Darrow debated Bryan it was a big step forward, why should now be any different?

[cbayer]

8. Definitely not working at all, so the approach needs some

serious reconsideration.

I played with the idea of going to Ken Ham's creation museum on our last road trip.

You have to sign some kind of agreement before you go in that you won't mock or laugh.

I though I could probably follow that, but I was pretty sure that my husband could not.

[skepticscott]

9. Disagree that avoiding debates like these is the best thing

There are basically three groups of people out there.

One group is already firmly convinced that evolution is a fact and that creationism is religiously motivated crap. More evidence and arguments from someone like Nye (or Ham) will not change their thinking, except perhaps in very rare cases.

One groups is so brainwashed and religiously addled into believing that creationism is true and that evolution is scientific nonsense that no evidence or argument will change their thinking either (except, again, in very rare cases).

The third group consists of those who truly don't know, for whom the issue is not settled in their minds, and who are still amenable to being convinced. That this group exists makes such debates worthwhile, even though it is the other two groups that tend to make the most noise about it, and who tend to be the ones represented at the podiums.

[hrmjustin]

10. I think the debate was important.

I have no issue with people personally wanting to believe in creationism but when they want it taught in schools.

[cbayer]

11. And particularly when they want it taught as science.

This is one of those problems that seems to be growing, not shrinking.

I like this author's thoughts on how best to address it. What is being done is certainly not working very well.

[edhopper]

12. wait!

You have no problem with people believing in something that is 100% provably wrong? What makes you think the people that believe evolution is a lie an God created the Earth and Man would keep it to themselves and not try to force it into the classroom. Creationist are the very definition of closed minded religious zealots.
it's one thing when we debate the reality of larger religious themes, but to not care about the willfull, anti-science ignorance of a large part of the population is worrying.

[hrmjustin]

13. If they want to believe it that is their choice. I can't stop them.

[edhopper]

14. but when availed of the opportunity you could

try to dissuade them of the ignorance.
Does it also not bother you when people think taxes need to be lowered for the wealthy and social programs need to be cut?
Or that Iraq had WMDs and was involved in 911?
I mean as long as they don't act on it, right?

[hrmjustin]

15. First off I don't know anyone that believes in creationism.

Second what do you want me to say to them?

Third I do argue with people who want to lower taxes on the rich and cut social programs.

And finally I was very angry when they lied about the WMD in iraq. My cousin was killed as a result of the war. And the fact they tried to tie Iraq to 9/11 infuriated me. I knew 5 people who died in the towers.

[edhopper]

16. I was using a rhetorical device

to compare a willfully wrong religious idea with an equally wrong political one. Why do you give the religious one a pass and debate the political ones?
Do you not think anti-science fundamentalist aren't as dangerous as right wingers?

[hrmjustin]

17. What am I supposed to do?

[edhopper]

18. at the very least

you should have a problem with people who wish to believe in anti -intellectual, fundamentalist claptrap in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary.
To say you have no isdue with it gives a pass to this type of thinking.

[hrmjustin]

19. My problem is when they want it in the public schools.

I have never met a person who says they believe in creationism. Even in Catholic school we were taught evolution.

If a person wants to personally believe in creationism that is their issue not mine.

If I met a person who believed this I would give them a debate but since I have not I just don't have to deal with it here in NYC.

Now in other parts of the nation this is an issue and I wish those who have to go up against the creationist the best of luck.

[edhopper]

20. I see

I think we were talking past each other. I took you statement to mean it doesn't bother you. I think now you were saying it is not something you deal with. Though I must tell you, there are creationist in NYC.

[hrmjustin]

21. There are creationists here but I have not have the pleasure of meeting them.

[edhopper]

22. lucky you

I'll introduce you to my in-laws.

[hrmjustin]

23. I am sorry you have to deal with it but all the Christians here that I know don't

believe it or won't admit to believing it.

[edhopper]

24. yes

mostly they don't.

[hrmjustin]

25. I have always found it amusing that some people think the Flintstones are the real thing.

[edhopper]

26. hey now

you're going to spoil my childhood.

[hrmjustin]

27. So you have met people other than your in-laws that believe in creationism?

[edhopper]

28. yes I have

some at work. Some who weren't fundies, just had a hard time understanding science.
And truthfully the ones who are all fire and brimstone and Jesus this and Jesus that, I don't even try. It is a waste of time.

[hrmjustin]

29. Yeah I get annoyed when people get all preachy to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Well you live in New York.

Try living in a rural area anywhere or in the "bible belt" and you will find that your school system, or somebody you know in the next town's school system is being attacked by religious zealots on a regular basis.

"as long as they don't...." - but they are, all over the place. I'm not an anti-theist just because believing in bullshit gives me hives, but because religious nut jobbery is a massive political problem.

[hrmjustin]

32. As I sais when they push it in schools I draw a line and say no.

If they want to teach it in their churches that is their business.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. "when" - that's the thing, they are, they have been, and they will continue to do so.

so your statement is a bit unclear. This shit needs to be shutdown. People need to be told in no uncertain terms that their religious beliefs are unacceptable, because those beliefs include forcing their nonsense on everyone else.

[hrmjustin]

34. Well I am not in a position to say anything because I do not know any of them.

I support your right to say they are wrong and I support their right to believe it.

[Lordquinton]

30. These debates are always traps

Even this one was, but Bill avoided falling into it. The trap is the glaringly obvious logic hole that the creationist is screaming at the other side with every word.

Ham's main argument centered around "Observable science" and God did it. The obvious question is "Did you see god do it"?" or "Can we observe god?" and they get labeled "anti-theist" or some similar rubbish and silenced, when they just asked the question that was begged.