Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayso
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.