Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Evolution debate

[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]

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

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.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[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]

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.

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]

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

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.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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?