Religion
Related: About this forumNye vs Ham from a debate stand point.
The non-confrontational logic shared by the Dawkins Foundation and most scientists is potentially shortsighted because it fails to recognize important human factors at play. There are many reasons why voters need to see this confrontation. Most importantly, failure to confront creationists doesn’t serve the need for publicly verifiable evidence. Furthermore, it has the potential of painting scientists as unreasonable, which is the opposite of the truth since reason is inherent in science.
Though there are dangers, debate is defined as only: “a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.” There are no requirements on the merits that support the opinions. Debate has the potential to make huge progress in excluding creationists teachings from academic science. As such, I was in full support of the debate. In fact, here are two concepts that made the debate a good idea:
1) Content, Contrast, and Context
The evidence supporting the theory of evolution is very scientific in nature. In contrast, the support for teaching creationism is based solely on faith. With the content fueling both sides in the same context, Nye was easily able to challenge the concept of causal supernatural involvement. Nye also succeeded in deconstructing Ham’s explanations as probably nonsense. The audience (America) compared an overwhelming amount of convincing evidence supporting evolution side-by-side with lack of directly observable evidence besides “the bible says” and “the bible tells us…” Contrast becomes more obvious in a side-by-side context. Simply answering the questions surrounding this debate provides a much needed service for the uneducated voters to make the right choice and keep creation out of the classroom.
...
2) Presence and Prowess
Nye is a smart guy and an excellent speaker. Putting an articulate scientist and a [creationist] believer side-by-side was good move because it revealed the difference between science, which is always open to evidence-based modification (observation/inference/deduction), and creationist belief, which is somewhat totalitarian in presenting the word of god as a literal translation of the bible. If Nye had refused to debate when challenged, he would have been doing the same thing that Ham did in the debate, which was to say “…no, no one is ever going to convince me…” when asked “what, if anything, would change your mind.” Nye’s reply to the same question was “We would just need one piece of evidence.” Not having the debate would have been a failure to address a real problem and a missed opportunity.
This writer was a good college debater. Read it all here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jim__
(14,083 posts)I'm not sure if many people are undecided about this issue; and I doubt that the debate changed many minds. If it did change any, then I believe it was Nye that won. I totally disagree that Nye wiped the floor with Ham.
Ham's opening remarks contained as a main point, the claim that there is observational science and historical science, and we can't know about a past that neither we nor any other human observed. IIRC, Nye never really addressed this point. Nye made a joke of it, saying that we are always looking into the past, the people at the back of the room looked younger than the people at the front. He really needed to follow that with some description of how science can use observational data in the present to validate hypotheses about what happened in the past. Granted, Ham did not convince anyone with his claim; but, watching the debate, I had the distinct impression that if I had come in accepting Ham's claim about historical science, Nye made no convincing argument against it.
And while I'm quite sure that Ham's reliance on the Bible did not convert anyone to his side, I think the arguments where he claimed that there is a version of science, the historical side of science, that does not in any way contradict the Bible had a very strong appeal to the people who believe as he does. He was very good at making religious appeals.
I thought Nye's strongest arguments were the one's that he used against the Noah's ark story. The fact that the best shipwrights in the US in the middle of the 19th century could not build a sea-going vessel built according the the ark's specifications was a powerful argument and one that I thought could appeal to creationists workers who may well recognize the types of problems that Nye described.
Even though I don't think the debate converted many people, I think it was a good idea for a couple of reasons:
- Amicable discussion does help to bring people together. I don't think creationists will ultimately get creationism into schools, and I think discussions like this may help to get them to accept that evolution is legitimate science,
- Creationists points are rebuttable, and even though they may get away with an argument once, they are very unlikely to get away with it a 2nd time. Multiple debates across time are on the side of science.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to show the validity of so-called "historical science" is to liken it to the investigation of a crime. Even with no direct eyewitnesses, we can uncover evidence that lets us reconstruct past events and determine in some cases who committed a crime with a very high level of confidence. That's an example that even non-scientists can readily connect with.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Thinking it was a good idea misses the entire objective of this debate from Ham's point of view, and that was convincing people *there was any debate to be had*. The creationists entire political strategy for working this crap into schools is "teach the controversy", which relies on creating the impression there is any controversy in the first place. and having this debate handed that to them on a silver platter.
He "won" as soon as he stepped on the stage next to an actual scientist and everyone saw him standing up there to begin "debating" the topic, no matter how the rest of the debate went.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)I'm pretty sure hes just a ME whose only PhDs are honorary at best.
Also, the polls show that over 1/2 of the US believes in creationism. I think the creationist are doing pretty good despite us ignoring them. Besides, the last big debate on the issue was a HUGE win for secularism when Darrow made a "monkey" out of Bryan.
I just can't help but imagine how dumb Hamm would have looked if he debated the likes of Aaron Raa instead 
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Also, the polls show that over 1/2 of the US believes in creationism.
Which only reinforces my point. Half the country is that clueless and you want people going out of their way to create the reinforcing impression for them that this debate is something to be taken seriously?
I just can't help but imagine how dumb Hamm would have looked if he debated the likes of Aaron Raa instead
You've got "rational person" blinders on. It doesn't matter who he was debating. It doesn't matter what arguments were made. Ham doesn't give a crap whether he's making valid arguments or whether valid arguments are being presented against his position. He doesn't care if every single claim he makes is shown to be diametrically opposed to plain unassailable facts. He isn't up there to win a serious debate on the merits he's up there to create emotion and play on people's religious insecurities. He's up there to put on a show.
All he wanted was the stage and the audience. And Nye gave it to him.
Gothmog
(145,558 posts)I agree that this debate was a good idea and that Nye did a great job
Promethean
(468 posts)However I disagree that this specific debate was a good idea. Notably because Ham is fast approaching financial insolvency for his absurd creationism theme park. Ham is monetizing the debate, selling dvds (edited I am sure) for instance. The debate is effectively serving to delay its failure and shut down.
