Bill Nye to debate creationists

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Washington Post

This should be good, even though I doubt anyone will say anything new or groundbreaking in the debate.  It'd be great if they decide to televise this or put it online.  Sadly we'll probably just see snippets on YouTube of one of the debaters "pwning" the other.

[afleitch]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Washington Post

This should be good, even though I doubt anyone will say anything new or groundbreaking in the debate.  It'd be great if they decide to televise this or put it online.  Sadly we'll probably just see snippets on YouTube of one of the debaters "pwning" the other.

Sometimes the full debates make it to youtube. William Lane Craig's debates with Hitchens and Spong did for example.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

And not debating them won't?  There is already a large body of people who believe in creationism.  Leaving them in their fantasies is not an optimal solution.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Unless Nye does any of the kids show stuff I'm not interested.

[afleitch]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

And not debating them won't?  There is already a large body of people who believe in creationism.  Leaving them in their fantasies is not an optimal solution.

Because creationism is a fantasy it constantly changes itself when challenged with evidence. Same with those who deny the holocaust. It's not worth debating because there is nothing to debate. It can be challenged but that doesn't require academically engaging with it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You can't actually debate with someone that insists that up is indeed down.

[All Along The Watchtower]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

And not debating them won't?  There is already a large body of people who believe in creationism.  Leaving them in their fantasies is not an optimal solution.

Yeah, just like large bodies of people believe that Elvis is alive, Paul McCartney is dead, and JFK was killed by the Secret Service on the orders of Lyndon Johnson (who was under the hypnosis of the CIA's Mind Control Program).

Point being: Pretty much every human being on the planet has some irrational, unprovable, and kooky beliefs. And access to information and education hasn't made things better; if anything, it is easier than ever to secure oneself in a self-reinforcing feedback loop regarding any set of beliefs.  Human beings are funny like that.

[DemPGH]

I think he's only forayed into this in recent years, and he is good (Nye, I mean). I think the best thing that can come from this is that it be used to teach critical thinking. Not God vs. No God, which will never be settled to any real degree of satisfaction, but this debate can be used to get people to question things, and ultimately that might lead them to non-belief. Sagan always approached it that way and Neil Tyson now and again as well.

[bullmoose88]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

Agree with this and Al.

Some reporter, imagine that, actually brought up some criticism regarding Nye's debating the creationists, in that while Bill Nye is affectionately known as "the Science Guy" he's probably not the best credentialed person to lead the science side (or even close).  Nye really couldn't justify why it had to be him either.

[Associate Justice PiT]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

Agree with this and Al.

Some reporter, imagine that, actually brought up some criticism regarding Nye's debating the creationists, in that while Bill Nye is affectionately known as "the Science Guy" he's probably not the best credentialed person to lead the science side (or even close).  Nye really couldn't justify why it had to be him either.

     The better credentialed scientists were probably too busy conducting and writing papers concerning important research to bother with debating creationists.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

Agree with this and Al.

Some reporter, imagine that, actually brought up some criticism regarding Nye's debating the creationists, in that while Bill Nye is affectionately known as "the Science Guy" he's probably not the best credentialed person to lead the science side (or even close).  Nye really couldn't justify why it had to be him either.

     The better credentialed scientists were probably too busy conducting and writing papers concerning important research to bother with debating creationists.

Also a lot of credentialed scientists aren't really equipped to handle a debate like this in the first place.

[Joe Republic]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

You can't actually debate with someone that insists that up is indeed down.

Say what you will about Richard Dawkins, but he sums this up pretty well.  (After 1:22, anyway.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

He shouldn't debate them. It gives them credence.

You can't actually debate with someone that insists that up is indeed down.

Say what you will about Richard Dawkins, but he sums this up pretty well.  (After 1:22, anyway.)

Dawkins is often full of hot air.  Such as here where he asserts that anyone who notices the genetic relationships between related creatures would have to be convinced that either evolution is a fact or that God deliberately designed creatures so as to deceive people into think he isn't the creator.  To be fair, part of the reason he asserts that is that even the junk DNA that has no purpose shows that relationship, yet we now know that junk DNA is not totally without use. But even so, Dawkins ignores the very reasonable option that a creator God would leave clues to the relationships between the different creatures He created so that we humans could someday perceive them clearly.  Not that I am a creationist, but the genetic codes of creatures is by itself only a necessary piece of evidence for the theory of evolution and certainly not sufficient to prove it.

Still, it does point out that Dawkins is most certainly the wrong person to debate a creationist.  He is too damn certain of his theories to consider alternatives and hence is unable to prepare to debate alternative points of view.  A good debater needs to be able to understand the views of eir opponent, despite the fact the ey doesn't share those views.  Dawkins is incapable of that and instead ascribes to all creationists (and indeed to all religionists) a la-la mentality that will never let facts contradict the holy book of their choice.  While that viewpoint is true of some, Dawkins apparent inability that some is not the same as all just goes to show he is an idiot.

[bullmoose88]

Getting to what Ernest said, while I think Nye would be a good presenter he is: (1) so emotionally involved on the subject (passion is a good thing but at times a double edged sword, and  (2) isn't really an expert on evolution (bs in mechanical science).

I don't think Dawkins is the right guy for this either. Limit the debate to evolution only let's not poison the well with this group by questioning God's existence here. (I still believe in God, and I'm reasonable most days so leave it at reasonable minds can disagree). 

Who has Nyes ability to digest difficult concepts for the less informed but still carries Dawkins' gravitas? That is who is needed. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Do you really need a degree to debate a creationist, though?

[bore]

Kenneth Miller is very good at this sort of thing and nips in the bud the whole atheist plot to undermine the bible idea.

But really Scott's right in that Young Earth Creationism in particular but creationism more generally is so bizarre that it shouldn't need Abraham Lincoln to defeat it.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Is it only YECs? Because OECs deserve a shot too. Theistic Evolutionists (Which are technically creationists) might be ok depending on how they interpret the fossil record.

[bullmoose88]

Do you really need a degree to debate a creationist, though?

Touché.

Though I wonder if not sending your best guy or gal invites a problem during the debate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Is it only YECs? Because OECs deserve a shot too. Theistic Evolutionists (Which are technically creationists) might be ok depending on how they interpret the fossil record.

Again, how are we creationists?  Creationists reject everything evolutionists study.  Taking a position for evolution isn't taking a position against God, even though that's what the hardliners on both sides of the debate want everyone to think.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Is it only YECs? Because OECs deserve a shot too. Theistic Evolutionists (Which are technically creationists) might be ok depending on how they interpret the fossil record.

Again, how are we creationists?  Creationists reject everything evolutionists study.  Taking a position for evolution isn't taking a position against God, even though that's what the hardliners on both side of the debate want everyone to think.

A creationist is someone who believes the world was created by someone, usually referring to the Christian god, and that's what theistic evolutionists believe.

[John Dibble]

Is it only YECs? Because OECs deserve a shot too. Theistic Evolutionists (Which are technically creationists) might be ok depending on how they interpret the fossil record.

Again, how are we creationists?  Creationists reject everything evolutionists study.  Taking a position for evolution isn't taking a position against God, even though that's what the hardliners on both side of the debate want everyone to think.

Do you believe that God or some other equivalent being created the universe? If the answer is yes, you are a creationist regardless of the particulars of your beliefs in that regard by the broadest definition of 'creationist'. This is in the same sense that some religions don't include gods, so their practitioners meet the broadest criteria for being an atheist - not believing in any gods. This is why Theistic Evolutionists are technically creationists. Of course, in general conversation it's useful to make the distinction as most people will think of the YEC type when they hear "creationist" just like most people would think of someone without any religion when they hear "atheist".

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Is it only YECs? Because OECs deserve a shot too. Theistic Evolutionists (Which are technically creationists) might be ok depending on how they interpret the fossil record.

Again, how are we creationists?  Creationists reject everything evolutionists study.  Taking a position for evolution isn't taking a position against God, even though that's what the hardliners on both side of the debate want everyone to think.

Do you believe that God or some other equivalent being created the universe? If the answer is yes, you are a creationist regardless of the particulars of your beliefs in that regard by the broadest definition of 'creationist'. This is in the same sense that some religions don't include gods, so their practitioners meet the broadest criteria for being an atheist - not believing in any gods. This is why Theistic Evolutionists are technically creationists. Of course, in general conversation it's useful to make the distinction as most people will think of the YEC type when they hear "creationist" just like most people would think of someone without any religion when they hear "atheist".

I guess I just prefer the term "theist" to "creationist" if we're referring to people who merely believe in a God.  Even the debate at the Creationist Museum is almost definitely going to revolve around evolution versus no evolution rather than God versus no God.  (If the latter were the case, Nye definitely wouldn't be the best person to debate it because he's not a philosopher or theologian.)

[John Dibble]

Is it only YECs? Because OECs deserve a shot too. Theistic Evolutionists (Which are technically creationists) might be ok depending on how they interpret the fossil record.

Again, how are we creationists?  Creationists reject everything evolutionists study.  Taking a position for evolution isn't taking a position against God, even though that's what the hardliners on both side of the debate want everyone to think.

Do you believe that God or some other equivalent being created the universe? If the answer is yes, you are a creationist regardless of the particulars of your beliefs in that regard by the broadest definition of 'creationist'. This is in the same sense that some religions don't include gods, so their practitioners meet the broadest criteria for being an atheist - not believing in any gods. This is why Theistic Evolutionists are technically creationists. Of course, in general conversation it's useful to make the distinction as most people will think of the YEC type when they hear "creationist" just like most people would think of someone without any religion when they hear "atheist".

I guess I just prefer the term "theist" to "creationist" if we're referring to people who merely believe in a God.  Even the debate at the Creationist Museum is almost definitely going to revolve around evolution versus no evolution rather than God versus no God.  (If the latter were the case, Nye definitely wouldn't be the best person to debate it because he's not a philosopher or theologian.)

Well, keep in mind being a theist doesn't make you a creationist either. Some religions have had gods, but those gods weren't responsible for creating the universe. For instance, Jainism is technically theistic in that it has gods even if they aren't really worshiped, but in their cosmology the universe has simply always existed.

[bore]

Is it only YECs? Because OECs deserve a shot too. Theistic Evolutionists (Which are technically creationists) might be ok depending on how they interpret the fossil record.

Again, how are we creationists?  Creationists reject everything evolutionists study.  Taking a position for evolution isn't taking a position against God, even though that's what the hardliners on both side of the debate want everyone to think.

Do you believe that God or some other equivalent being created the universe? If the answer is yes, you are a creationist regardless of the particulars of your beliefs in that regard by the broadest definition of 'creationist'. This is in the same sense that some religions don't include gods, so their practitioners meet the broadest criteria for being an atheist - not believing in any gods. This is why Theistic Evolutionists are technically creationists. Of course, in general conversation it's useful to make the distinction as most people will think of the YEC type when they hear "creationist" just like most people would think of someone without any religion when they hear "atheist".

I guess I just prefer the term "theist" to "creationist" if we're referring to people who merely believe in a God.  Even the debate at the Creationist Museum is almost definitely going to revolve around evolution versus no evolution rather than God versus no God.  (If the latter were the case, Nye definitely wouldn't be the best person to debate it because he's not a philosopher or theologian.)

Well, keep in mind being a theist doesn't make you a creationist either. Some religions have had gods, but those gods weren't responsible for creating the universe. For instance, Jainism is technically theistic in that it has gods even if they aren't really worshiped, but in their cosmology the universe has simply always existed.

I don't know much about Jainism so I can't comment on it specifically, but certainly most Christians when they talk about creation aren't referring to God just kicking off the big bang (or something like that) at a point in time, they see it as something He is doing at all moments. Basically it would still be creation if it turned out the universe was eternal.