Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Evolution debate

[Mandalore93]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Kenny boy honestly kind of glided over the vast majority of specific evidence for evolution and really moved the debate towards science vs religion and arguing that science has become dogmatic and is imposed on children.

[Tenlaar]

Interesting debate, except for when Ken Ham's answer to a question was "cause the bible says so."

Unfortunately that was his answer to roughly 90% of them.

[Bazia]

Stupid debate, you can't explain faith in a logical way.

That's why it's called "faith".

Dumb idea went as expected.

[Grimfan]

It was painful to watch, as expected. I did enjoy Bill's passion on science though, it's great to see him carry on the legacy of his mentor Carl Sagan.

[Nads]

Bill Nye absolutely destroyed Ham in this "debate" even though that was surely not his grand purpose. Bill was simply trying to promote science as a whole and to encourage study of the natural world over taking everything at face value without asking questions.

Ken Ham, though, is a delusional idiot who fattens his wallet through the manipulation of others with that bullshit he believes. Not even the most backwards-assed vatican leaders believe in Creationism; why is this so hard for so many Americans to figure out?

[Ahldagor]

Bill Nye absolutely destroyed Ham in this "debate" even though that was surely not his grand purpose. Bill was simply trying to promote science as a whole and to encourage study of the natural world over taking everything at face value without asking questions.

Ken Ham, though, is a delusional idiot who fattens his wallet through the manipulation of others with that bullshit he believes. Not even the most backwards-assed vatican leaders believe in Creationism; why is this so hard for so many Americans to figure out?

free market enterprise man

[r00t]

Interesting debate, except for when Ken Ham's answer to a question was "cause the bible says so."

Unfortunately that was his answer to roughly 90% of them.

Nye's answer to everything was "cause the science says so."

[Ahldagor]

Nye's answer to everything was "cause the science says so."

when are you going to accept the nihilism that is at the root of every platonic argument?

[Tenlaar]

Nye's answer to everything was "cause the science says so."

Nye's answer was "cause the evidence says so." Very big difference.

[Orruar]

Nye's answer was "cause the evidence says so." Very big difference.

But nobody was around to see the rock layers forming over billions of years, so we have to rely on a book written by some dudes channeling the voice of god a couple dozen centuries ago!

[Mandalore93]

I was really proud of Nye for not shooting that kind of stuff back at him Orruar. Really exemplified scientific thought throughout the debate and didn't resort to a lot of philosophical shit.

[Uteunayr]

I was very surprised that Nye never went into the philosophy of science behind how we can know about things that have happened without direct observation. It seemed incredibly important and central, because Ham can always just go back to "God made them seem older."

As I remember it being taught, the idea is that if you come across a boot print, you have no way to observe how it was made, and to say it with certainty (Ham's argument). However, what you can do is to look at the depth of the print, the details of the different shapes in the print, the size of the print, and from there, you can observe in the world around you for someone with that boot print, or for a brand with that boot. Once discovered, and if the boot print fits, you can figure out an approximate weight based on the resistance of the ground (muddy, frozen dirt, etc.), and then you can begin to offer an explanation that goes something like, "A 250 pound person wearing X name brand boot walked through here, and stepped here to make this print."

That is a reasonable (hence Nye's "Reasonable Man" argument) conclusion based on all evidence available. Since the boot print serves no other fundamental reason to existence, it is simply a byproduct of what has happened, it is reasonable to assume that it was a dude wearing a boot walking through. Now, true, you cannot explicitly know it, but the more information you gather, you increase your certainty, and if one day someone comes along that says "Actually, that wasn't a boot, that was an alien" and then can pull out an alien with feet that look like that, that weigh the same, and you have more insurmountable proof, science will reject the previous theory (dude with a boot) in favor of the greater evidence provided (as Nye emphasized), unless you're Ham. Although in this case, I think we'd be more interested in the alien than the blueprint. But regardless, the point is there.

This type of introduction of the philosophy of science would have added far more context to the reason why he emphasized cosmic radiation. Just as we could reasonable assume it is a boot print, we can reasonable assume it is a byproduct of that Big Bang. That's why, as Nye said, it was so appealing when someone just went "Maybe there was a big bang...", because then all the pieces snapped into place.

It just bothered me the way that Ham was stuck upon the idea that science can only be done on that which is directly observable. Nye was trying to get back at that by referring to CSI, and the way they use clues from the now to explain the past, but Ham was able to simply refute it as they are studying the present without Nye going at him for it. I am a social scientist (political science), so I work with research on a daily basis that measures things that cannot be directly observable. There are statistical methods, like LISREL, all for trying to get at things you cannot observe.

Either way, good on Bill. I think he stopped trying to debate Ham about half-way through and started focusing more on making the case for funding proper education. Good on him.

I would have enjoyed seeing Hitchens up there.

[Orruar]

Ham's whole distinction between "observational science" and "historical science" is a false dichotomy. As Nye pointed out, all observational science is historical science to a degree, since information never travels instantaneously. But I'm sure that point was lost on most of the followers of Ham.

The way I would have attacked this idea would be to first ask why the distinction exists. Ham doesn't explicitly say why "historical science" is less reliable than "observational science", but the implicit reason (as I understand it) is that god, being omnipotent, could have acted in the past to make things look older than they really are. When he created the earth 6000 years ago, he could have also created galaxies that really are billions of light years away, and then put light beams out there at 6000 light years away coming from the direction of those galaxies, so that it looks like light has actually been traveling from them. In Ham's view, "observational science" is more legitimate because we can run experiments in the present that aren't subject to this possible error (the god created things like that 6000 years ago to fuck with us problem). However, if god is omnipotent, isn't it just as likely that he can fuck with our experiments in the present as well? This makes "observational science" every bit as prone to the same error as "historical science".

tl;dr
As soon as you accept that there is a god that is willing to fuck with nature in the past, invalidating our scientific tools of understanding the past, you must accept that this god could be still fucking with nature in the present, and therefore we can't understand the present with scientific tools either.

[blondeattk]

Am a creationist, but unlike ken ham I dont believe that the earth/universe is 6000 years old.

My real interest is on the end time events on earth not the stuff in the past. However over the years i have accumulated inside knowledge of ancient events on earth.

imo the creation vs science stuff is below me, its too immature for me to be interested in it. However i have 30 years of exp of esoteric knowledge....something many folk never aquire at all.

If any one wants to know what really happened in the past, i can direct you to some interesting stuff(pm me).

Whats more important is to find God in the present, before the tribulation begins later this year.

[dax]

Worst part of religion are the Politicians that believe in creationism.Come on people actually think the world is only 6 thousand years old??? So what cave men and Radiocarbon dating are myths? Religion is proof evaluation can go backwards ;/ flame away

[Uteunayr]

Ham's whole distinction between "observational science" and "historical science" is a false dichotomy. As Nye pointed out, all observational science is historical science to a degree, since information never travels instantaneously. But I'm sure that point was lost on most of the followers of Ham.

The way I would have attacked this idea would be to first ask why the distinction exists. Ham doesn't explicitly say why "historical science" is less reliable than "observational science", but the implicit reason (as I understand it) is that god, being omnipotent, could have acted in the past to make things look older than they really are. When he created the earth 6000 years ago, he could have also created galaxies that really are billions of light years away, and then put light beams out there at 6000 light years away coming from the direction of those galaxies, so that it looks like light has actually been traveling from them. In Ham's view, "observational science" is more legitimate because we can run experiments in the present that aren't subject to this possible error (the god created things like that 6000 years ago to fuck with us problem). However, if god is omnipotent, isn't it just as likely that he can fuck with our experiments in the present as well? This makes "observational science" every bit as prone to the same error as "historical science".

tl;dr
As soon as you accept that there is a god that is willing to fuck with nature in the past, invalidating our scientific tools of understanding the past, you must accept that this god could be still fucking with nature in the present, and therefore we can't understand the present with scientific tools either.

Definitely, the distinction is completely made up. You create scientific models to predict reality as it behaves under certain parameters. It doesn't matter if the time is in the past, or the time is now, so long as the given parameters are there, the given outcome should occur, and will occur to the best of our knowledge. To say you haven't been there, so you can't say for certainty, you mine as well give up any predictive power as well, because you're not in the future, so you can't say something is going to happen.

Nye was good in pointing that out, I'd just have liked to see him provide more context for why all science is inherently historical, and that it doesn't invalidate it unless you're going to take an anti-empirical approach all together.

I definitely like the idea you bring up that if God intentionally fucked with the tools of the past, you're making a big assumption that he isn't now if you try to use scientific tools, and therefore there is no way to have consistent knowledge, and so the endeavor is fruitless. Interesting way to present it.

http://i.imgur.com/jgZs4jm.jpg

[Kayso]

My problem with the whole thing is twofold.

First, Bill Nye is awesome, but having him representing the scientific community in a debate is very similar to selecting Dr. Dre to be your primary care physician. Unless I am wrong, Nye has no PhD, no research credentials, and is, basically, a middle school science teacher.

Second, debating a creationist lends a level of legitimacy to creationism which just doesn't exist. There's no controversy. It's not like two equally valid points are being presented and each has its merits.

Pigs aren't allowed to enter the Miss America pageant for good reason -- and it's not because anyone is afraid the pig will win.

[Lojik]

My problem with the whole thing is twofold.

First, Bill Nye is awesome, but having him representing the scientific community in a debate is very similar to selecting Dr. Dre to be your primary care physician. Unless I am wrong, Nye has no PhD, no research credentials, and is, basically, a middle school science teacher.

Second, debating a creationist lends a level of legitimacy to creationism which just doesn't exist. There's no controversy. It's not like two equally valid points are being presented and each has its merits.

Pigs aren't allowed to enter the Miss America pageant for good reason -- and it's not because anyone is afraid the pig will win.

A debate is not a scientific way to arrive at answers, so I see no reason why he needs overwhelming scientific credentials. This is about entertainment and education, which is right up his alley.

[Shannacore]

First, Bill Nye is awesome, but having him representing the scientific community in a debate is very similar to selecting Dr. Dre to be your primary care physician. Unless I am wrong, Nye has no PhD, no research credentials, and is, basically, a middle school science teacher.


Nye holds several United States patents,[45] including one for ballet pointe shoes[39]

SOUNDS LEGIT

[Mandalore93]

Off the top of my head, Nye was an engineer, I think aeronautics?

[Nads]

Earth is 6000 years old because my "divinely inspired," American-english-translated, completely unreliable book where I pick and choose what I want to believe says so. I just traced back the genealogy back to Adam and Eve!

SOUNDS LEGIT

[phacemeltar]

Nye worked for Boeing i think, invented some device that they still use in some popular airplane. Acquisition of a PhD rarely qualifies to judge the scope of one's intellect. After all, its just a piece of paper. Nye has been able to work with some of the best scientific minds of the past 100 years, mostly due to his television popularity. I would consider him to be a reliable source for his critical thinking ability.

[Uteunayr]

My problem with the whole thing is twofold.

First, Bill Nye is awesome, but having him representing the scientific community in a debate is very similar to selecting Dr. Dre to be your primary care physician. Unless I am wrong, Nye has no PhD, no research credentials, and is, basically, a middle school science teacher.

Second, debating a creationist lends a level of legitimacy to creationism which just doesn't exist. There's no controversy. It's not like two equally valid points are being presented and each has its merits.

Pigs aren't allowed to enter the Miss America pageant for good reason -- and it's not because anyone is afraid the pig will win.

This is true, the highest degree Bill Nye holds is a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering. However, there are a few points to be made.

1) The fault of having Bill Nye be representative is Ham's, as it was Ham that specifically asked for Bill Nye to debate him, as it was Ham's goal (please note, I am speculating as to his intentions based on my assessment of Ham and his incentives) to try and destroy Bill Nye in this debate so that viewers would see Ham in a significantly greater light, having destroyed what is many of the common folk's conception of a scientist (Bill Nye is embedded in popular culture in this way). In this way, he could rally more support for his people. Regrettable for him, while Bill Nye does not hold a degree, he has been and continues to be frequently a champion for the ideals of scientific discovery, and frequently professes to introductory courses at his alma mater, which is generally something only graduate students or professors would do (suggesting that he has a level of respect that goes above and beyond merely his degree limitations).

So this would be closer to selecting someone who has a bachelors degree in Nursing to be your primary care physician, but has gone their own path into more popular culture of health education. Sure, you could probably find someone who has better credentials, and likely better knowledge, but they are not invalid as an option.

2) As was mentioned earlier, any two individuals can debate on any subject that they wish. An individual does not need to be an academic to debate for something. In fact, in one of Christopher Hitchen's more famous debates, he is with Stephen Fry against the catholic church as a force for good. As far as I can tell, the only degree positions that Stephen Fry holds are honorary. In other words, the only prerequisite to debate is a willingness to. You can even go and debate for something you whole heartedly disagree with, and it offers a nice challenge.

3) Debating a creationist sort of offers a level of legitimacy, but one should not write the argument off entirely. Science has, at its core, discussion as a central aspect. If the scientific community refuses to discuss a subject, than the champions of that subject can simply claim that it is being ignored due to bias. Since science is about eliminating as much potential bias from measurements as possible, it is entirely reasonable to debate a creationist and explain why they are wrong for everyone to see. Science doesn't give us the right to simply toss away an alternate idea because we don't see it as a controversy, we should take it down head on, over and over, so that there can be absolutely no question, and no way for the defeated theories to claim bias, as their views broke down. A view doesn't need to be valid or legitimate to be debated, because if it is invalid or illegitimate, than it will not hold up to the way we generate knowledge, and it will be unable to handle that.

What was showed, more than anything in this debate, and which I was happy about, is the different epistemological approaches of the two individuals, and I think it will ultimately help to sway more people who disagree with the epistemological approach that Ham presents. I don't think the average person is going to accept the idea that you can't know what you haven't seen, since the idea that we can piece together puzzles, mysteries, and all this stuff is so permeated through our society, and Nye did a good job of showing that, even if I think it could have been done more clearly.

[Orruar]

First, Bill Nye is awesome, but having him representing the scientific community in a debate is very similar to selecting Dr. Dre to be your primary care physician. Unless I am wrong, Nye has no PhD, no research credentials, and is, basically, a middle school science teacher.

Someone who has experience teaching children about science sounds like the perfect person to go talk to a bunch of creationists.

[Kayso]

Not arguing Nye's intellect or general awesomeness. I'll even ad that as an educator-type he possesses great skill at conveying information that many highly educated and credentialed scientists lack... I can't imagine that he comes across as anything but informed and thoughtful.

My questioning of Nye's qualifications is not at all about knowledge and all about the gravitas an advanced degree and a body of published research conveys.

Didn't know that Dr. Jesus personally requested Nye.

[Uteunayr]

Not arguing Nye's intellect or general awesomeness. I'll even ad that as an educator-type he possesses great skill at conveying information that many highly educated and credentialed scientists lack... I can't imagine that he comes across as anything but informed and thoughtful.

My questioning of Nye's qualifications is not at all about knowledge and all about the gravitas an advanced degree and a body of published research conveys.

Didn't know that Dr. Jesus personally requested Nye.

Of course, I didn't mean to come across as aggressive in any way. I can easily see how one would think that Bill Nye is an add choice if a group of scientists got together and decided Nye was the person to go forward, it would be a little bit unusual.

Although, as I have heard in jest (or perhaps not in jest), maybe they would have selected Bill Nye, because he has experience talking to and educating children. Lol.

[Tradesonred]

God is Santa Claus for adults

White bearded guy in the sky, doesnt give you rewards in the end if youve been bad, etc, etc...

[Orruar]

My questioning of Nye's qualifications is not at all about knowledge and all about the gravitas an advanced degree and a body of published research conveys.

Not everyone cares about qualifications. It's the ideas that matter. Qualifications are a tool for confusing people who don't know how to judge the ideas.

[Uteunayr]

Not everyone cares about qualifications. It's the ideas that matter. Qualifications are a tool for confusing people who don't know how to judge the ideas.

Not necessarily. They can offer a bit of consistency through being an information shortcut. While yes, you should always temper someone's qualifications with critical thinking about what the person says, if a person has a PhD, there is a level of prestige that comes along with that in terms of whether that person knows what they are talking about in relation to that field. It doesn't make them infallible, but I'd rather ask Dr. Lijphart about democratic institutional arrangements than a random individual on the street with no PhD in comparative institutions.

But, I think the essence is that you should always temper qualifications with logic. If a PhD starts saying absolutely fucking idiotic stuff that you can't find anywhere else, and there is no logic to what is said, totally disregard them. In that way, yeah, totally right. The ideas matter.

[Tradesonred]

Not necessarily. They can offer a bit of consistency through being an information shortcut. While yes, you should always temper someone's qualifications with critical thinking about what the person says, if a person has a PhD, there is a level of prestige that comes along with that in terms of whether that person knows what they are talking about in relation to that field. It doesn't make them infallible, but I'd rather ask Dr. Lijphart about democratic institutional arrangements than a random individual on the street with no PhD in comparative institutions.

But, I think the essence is that you should always temper qualifications with logic. If a PhD starts saying absolutely fucking idiotic stuff that you can't find anywhere else, and there is no logic to what is said, totally disregard them. In that way, yeah, totally right. The ideas matter.

Sometimes that education is just used to mindfuck people, gotta be wary of that too.

[Orruar]

Not necessarily. They can offer a bit of consistency through being an information shortcut. While yes, you should always temper someone's qualifications with critical thinking about what the person says, if a person has a PhD, there is a level of prestige that comes along with that in terms of whether that person knows what they are talking about in relation to that field. It doesn't make them infallible, but I'd rather ask Dr. Lijphart about democratic institutional arrangements than a random individual on the street with no PhD in comparative institutions.

But, I think the essence is that you should always temper qualifications with logic. If a PhD starts saying absolutely fucking idiotic stuff that you can't find anywhere else, and there is no logic to what is said, totally disregard them. In that way, yeah, totally right. The ideas matter.

Certainly qualifications can help in an otherwise low information environment. But a 2+ hour debate is not what I'd consider a low information environment. At that point, I don't care who has what letters behind their name. If they're giving good, verifiable information, that's all that matters.

I mean, Ken Ham pointed to a bunch of people with PhDs when trying to justify his position. It was total appeal to authority bullshit, which is to be expected from a man of religion, which is the ultimate appeal to authority fallacy lol

Also, take it from someone who is working on a PhD and regularly has discussions with plenty of people ranging from undergrad students to multiple PhDs. Nobody ever says anything about what degree a person has when considering their ideas. And when discussing a paper or article or talk, I can't recall a single time where we asked "what qualifications did that person have?" It's all about the ideas. That's one of the things that really sets science and religion apart.

[Uteunayr]

Certainly qualifications can help in an otherwise low information environment. But a 2+ hour debate is not what I'd consider a low information environment. At that point, I don't care who has what letters behind their name. If they're giving good, verifiable information, that's all that matters.

I mean, Ken Ham pointed to a bunch of people with PhDs when trying to justify his position. It was total appeal to authority bullshit, which is to be expected from a man of religion, which is the ultimate appeal to authority fallacy lol

Also, take it from someone who is working on a PhD and regularly has discussions with plenty of people ranging from undergrad students to multiple PhDs. Nobody ever says anything about what degree a person has when considering their ideas. And when discussing a paper or article or talk, I can't recall a single time where we asked "what qualifications did that person have?" It's all about the ideas. That's one of the things that really sets science and religion apart.

Certainly. My aim was more toward the blanket nature of your statement about qualifications. In regard to the debate, you'll find we're in agreement through my previous posts that the qualification doesn't matter, because anyone can debate meaningfully. The purpose of debate is that only the argument is what should matter. What I mean when I say the blanket nature is:

Qualifications are a tool for confusing people who don't know how to judge the ideas.

If this was qualified as "In a debate, qualifications are...", I could find myself more in agreement. It was merely that with what was written, it was a blanket statement that went far beyond simply for the sake of the debate.

Yeah, appeal to authority type of arguments are a classical logical fallacy, if I remember my logical fallacies correctly. I wish that Bill would have stood up and said "Appeal to authority. Logical fallacy. Your statements are irrelevant. My point.", I would have laughed, and still be laughing today because of it. But he was there to entertain, not to win a scored debate.

Certainly, no one says anything about a degree, I am also working on a PhD. It definitely helps you in publishing, and it does count for something when you can stand up in front of a conference room and say you are Dr.SoAndSo, rather than Mr.SoAndSo. People tend to listen up a good bit more. Whether that's good or bad, meh. It does happen though. I merely refer to that it is useful at times to act as an information shortcut, and the language presented made it sound (which I do not believe was the intent given the statement I quoted) far more rigid and unforgiving than I think was intended.

[Grahm]

I actually was interested in the opening statements cause Ham seemed to be giving actual information, whether right or wrong, instead of just going D BOOK SAID S0. That didn't last long tho and was stupid 2 even watch. BNSG should get credit for just not laughing his ass off.

Also, Billnyescienceguy does have a bachelors in science degree for his engineering shit, so is considered an "Amateur Scientist" so he only works on shit that is interesting to him, instead of being stuck in a certain field. i read the amateur science part in a youtube comment, but it seems logical lol.

and not about the debate, but on the religious side of this, every1 should be agnostic because it's the only logical way to go about it. who the fuck knows.

[Uteunayr]

I actually was interested in the opening statements cause Ham seemed to be giving actual information, whether right or wrong, instead of just going D BOOK SAID S0. That didn't last long tho and was stupid 2 even watch. BNSG should get credit for just not laughing his ass off.

Also, Billnyescienceguy does have a bachelors in science degree for his engineering shit, so is considered an "Amateur Scientist" so he only works on shit that is interesting to him, instead of being stuck in a certain field. i read the amateur science part in a youtube comment, but it seems logical lol.

and not about the debate, but on the religious side of this, every1 should be agnostic because it's the only logical way to go about it. who the fuck knows.

Just note that although Nye only has a bachelors, he is recognized in the scientific community, as he has taught numerous times at Cornell in the same position a professor or graduate student would.

[r00t]

Hypothesis: The THEORY of evolution is disproven by the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics

Namely that everything goes to chaos via entropy, not to complex DNA and sh1t
Also disproves the absurd theory that celestial bodies form into nearly perfect spheres which revolve in predictable places at precise times around other spherical celestial bodies

Conclusion: existence and the human race was made by aliens; we are living in a computer simulation

[Uteunayr]

the THEORY of evolution is disproven by the 2nd LAW of thermodyniamics

namely that everything goes to chaos via entropy, not to complex DNA and sh1t

also disproves the absurd theory that celestial bodies form into nearly perfect spheres which revolve in predictable places at precise times around other spherical celestial bodies

conclusion: human race was made by aliens; we are computer simulation

For as nice of a troll as this is, it isn't subtle enough to let the most annoying part of this stick, the inaccurate use of theory. It bothered me at first, and then I read onwards, and I went "Just an obvious troll". You should try to keep it more subtle to really lure people into it. Really need to walk the line between fucking with people and believable for a truly excellent troll. Other than that, good.

7/10.