Bill Nye to debate creationists

[Deus Naturae]

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.

And that would technically still be creationism, as God would still be responsible for creating the universe, even if He did so in such a way that it had no starting point. Based on the information I found here, it seems that Jains reject the notion that God had any role in the creation of the universe.

[President Tyrion]

Do note that Bill Nye, for the longest time, was considered a bit of an arrogant person. I'm not sure if it's quite Dawkins-level arrogance, but it's certainly something to watch out for.

In any case, I'd be surprised if people changed their beliefs based on the debate.

[DemPGH]

You don't have to have a Ph.D. in biological sciences to debate creationists. You need a fundamental understanding of critical thinking and fallacies plus the more knowledge about scientific processes that you have only helps. But the core of any debate against creationists is all the many fallacies they make, and in violating the Copernican Principal (i.e., putting themselves at the center).

FTR, I would love for someone from the arts who is an atheist to debate them on those grounds - you never see that, but they are out there aplenty.

I've heard Nye, and he is good.

Do note that Bill Nye, for the longest time, was considered a bit of an arrogant person. I'm not sure if it's quite Dawkins-level arrogance, but it's certainly something to watch out for.

In any case, I'd be surprised if people changed their beliefs based on the debate.

1) I find the religious / spiritual point of view unbearably arrogant.

2) No, most people will not change their minds. That's why I favor the friendlier grounds of critical thinking. People will either just get flustered and say, "Well, but Scripture says!" at which point you have them, or they'll go off and actually think about what they heard.

[President Tyrion]

Do note that Bill Nye, for the longest time, was considered a bit of an arrogant person. I'm not sure if it's quite Dawkins-level arrogance, but it's certainly something to watch out for.

In any case, I'd be surprised if people changed their beliefs based on the debate.

1) I find the religious / spiritual point of view unbearably arrogant.

2) No, most people will not change their minds. That's why I favor the friendlier grounds of critical thinking. People will either just get flustered and say, "Well, but Scripture says!" at which point you have them, or they'll go off and actually think about what they heard.

Critical thinking is certainly best. I'd say that certain people on both sides have a tendency to be dismissive; one actually has evidence. That doesn't preclude them from being arrogant, of course.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

It's today!

[DC Al Fine]

I think Nye won. Ham is an awful debater.

[Gass3268]

This is amusing

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is amusing

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/

     Good for Pat Robertson. He has courage speaking out against creationists here.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

This is amusing

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/

     Good for Pat Robertson. He has courage speaking out against young earth creationists here.

Fixed, because he's a creationist.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is amusing

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/pat_robertson_begs_ken_ham_to_shut_up/

     Good for Pat Robertson. He has courage speaking out against creationists here.

Fixed, because he's a creationist.

     I have never seen anyone else define creationist the way you do, so using an unorthodox usage as if it is obviously the normal one doesn't win brownie points. It reminds me of how Derek claimed that the means by which that the universe came to exist was definitionally God, so atheism really meant the claim that the universe didn't come to exist. I can see how he had a place for that, but it's not what most people mean by "atheism" or "creationism", so it muddies the waters to define it that way.

     That little issue aside, I prefer to use the term exclusively to refer to the YEC crowd because I have no use for a term that lumps all theists together. If you believe that things evolved over billions of years, but God made it happen, then I'm happy. On the question that matters to me, theistic evolution and atheistic evolution are exactly the same.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I always defined a creationist as believing the world was created. This is not exclusive to Christians that believe in a 6000 year old earth; but also to people of other faiths. Anyone who believes a creation story involving any form of deity or precursor or whatever is a creationist.

[DemPGH]

Oh, duh! Yeah, Ham is the Creation Museum crackpot featured in Bill Maher's 2008 movie Religulous. Uh-huh. I knew I heard him somewhere before. Yeah, he came off as a conceited creep in that movie. Well, Nye vs. Ham just wasn't a fair fight, then. I didn't watch it, but knowing what I know about Nye and Ham, I'll take the word of everyone else that Nye won. Probably soundly.

Creationism involves a deity, IMO, notwithstanding which one.

[bedstuy]

I always defined a creationist as believing the world was created. This is not exclusive to Christians that believe in a 6000 year old earth; but also to people of other faiths. Anyone who believes a creation story involving any form of deity or precursor or whatever is a creationist.

Maybe that's sort of valid, but in the context of evolution vs. creationism, I think creationism has to mean that you believe in God's magic as an some kind of alternative to evolution.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I always defined a creationist as believing the world was created. This is not exclusive to Christians that believe in a 6000 year old earth; but also to people of other faiths. Anyone who believes a creation story involving any form of deity or precursor or whatever is a creationist.

Maybe that's sort of valid, but in the context of evolution vs. creationism, I think creationism has to mean that you believe in God's magic as an some kind of alternative to evolution.

So you disagree with me and say theistic evolutionists are not creationists?

[bedstuy]

I always defined a creationist as believing the world was created. This is not exclusive to Christians that believe in a 6000 year old earth; but also to people of other faiths. Anyone who believes a creation story involving any form of deity or precursor or whatever is a creationist.

Maybe that's sort of valid, but in the context of evolution vs. creationism, I think creationism has to mean that you believe in God's magic as an some kind of alternative to evolution.

So you disagree with me and say theistic evolutionists are not creationists?

Obviously, it depends what definition you use.  But, just as a matter of nomenclature, that does not make any sense.  That makes creationist a synonym for theist.  We assume that a theist would believe God had some eternal role in creating the universe at least.  But, I think the common understanding of creationism and the primary definition in a dictionary would be an alternative to evolution.