Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Evolution debate

[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!

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

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]

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.

[Orruar]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.