General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHam-on-Nye Debate: 'Anti-Science Guy' Automatically Wins
The media is buzzing with news of the upcoming debate between Bill Nye the "Science Guy" and Ken Ham, America's leading young earth creationist the "anti-Science Guy." Much of the buzz has come from allies of Bill Nye, telling him to avoid climbing on stage with Ham to debate the credibility of biological evolution lest people get the mistaken impression that there actually is a debate about evolution.
People who hold marginal positions love debates because it makes their position seem credible -- after all we wouldn't be debating this question if it wasn't a real question would we? We wouldn't "defend" evolution unless it needed defending would we?
Creationists have long used public debates to advance their agenda. Leading creationists have speaking and writing skills that translate well into the rhetorically dominated debate format. By way of contrast, their debate opponents are often more schooled in technical scientific argumentation, where data, expertise, and consensus are far more important than rhetoric. But Bill Nye is an exception to this rule -- a "science entertainer" rather than a scientist and it will be interesting to see how he does.
Unfortunately many of the points needing to be made about evolution -- like the reliability of radioactive dating techniques, the interpretation of fossils, or the role of "assumptions" in science -- are too technical to work in a popular format. As a result, more than one leading scientist has "lost" the debate about evolution. I attended one such debate at Boston University in the late '70s and watched young earth creationist Duane Gish -- the dean of anti-evolution debaters -- humiliate a biology professor who got lost in details that he just couldn't explain to his audience. Such outcomes were so common 40 years ago that a consensus developed in the scientific community that their cause was not advanced by the debate format. Richard Dawkins echoed this wisdom recently in his warning to Nye that debating Ham was a bad idea.
<snip>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/ham-nye-debate-evolution_b_4714334.html
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)When your arguments do not sound like common sense to the audience it is hard to win a popularity contest against a panderer who is not manacled by the truth and can and will say anything.
If it were not for evolution a person would have to be pretty dense to not get that all these lifeforms were designed by somebody, because they have the almost perfect appearance of being designed.
And, like comedy, evolution is not easy.
egduj
(805 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)or do you think that debating whether the earth is flat is legitimate? How about debating whether gravity is an actual phenomena?
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Like Atomic Theory.. Why should we believe in Atoms when we can't see them and it is only a "Theory"? We should debate whether Atoms exist or not. If we find they do not exist we don't need to worry about atomic bombs....