Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bill Nye To Debate Creationist Museum Founder Ken Ham

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the confidentially-few-minds-are-likely-to-be-changed dept.

Earth 611

New submitter cusco writes "Creation Museum Founder and AiG President/CEO Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye at the Creation Museum on Tuesday, February 4, at 7 PM. According to the Washington Post, 'Ham had been hoping to attract the star of TV's 'Bill Nye The Science Guy' to the northern Kentucky museum after Nye said in an online video last year that teaching creationism was bad for children. The video was viewed nearly 6 million times on YouTube.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This should be good! (4, Insightful)

WilliamGeorge (816305) | about 10 months ago | (#45851137)

I hope it is easily view-able online, either live or shortly after. I'd go see it in person except, you know, wrong part of the country and all :)

Re:This should be good! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#45851151)

I respect Bye a great deal, but I wouldn't cross the room to listen to Ham.

Re:This should be good! (3, Insightful)

gameboyhippo (827141) | about 10 months ago | (#45851181)

Naw... My definition of a good debate is that you have opponents who both have equally insightful arguments. A better debate might be Bill Nye vs Dr. Hugh Ross.

Re:This should be good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851471)

Dr. Who Ross?

Re:This should be good! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851383)

If you're looking for entertainment at Ken Ham's expense, nothing is funnier than the guys that snuck into the opening of his creationism museam from which the regular press was barred by pretending to be from the special times. [buffalobeast.com]

Hilariously worth the read if you have a few minutes to spare.

Bad call (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 10 months ago | (#45851143)

If Bill Nye accepted this invitation, it gives the creationists far more exposure than they deserve.

Remember, if you wrestle a pig, you both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

Re:Bad call (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851219)

Who the hell are you to belittle other people's beliefs? I have yet to see one shred of evidence that disproves what the Bible tells us. All of the scientific 'facts' are easily explainable and if you read too much into them then you are falling into Satan's trap which was set exactly to snare nonbelievers such as yourself. You cannot believe some of our Lord's teachings and ignore others ... it's all a part of the complete package and you cannot believe only what is convenient for you. Please reconsider your stance on evolution before it's too late, or you will have all eternity to consider your foolishness as you rot in the pit.

Re: Bad call (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851263)

What warped time period are you from? The Dark Ages?

Re: Bad call (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851285)

The Dark Ages? Fuck, no. He's from Arkansas, circa 2014.

Re: Bad call (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45851441)

The ancient city of Trollandia. Seems there is a timewarp that lets them post here because there are a lot of them around.

Re:Bad call (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 10 months ago | (#45851271)

There are none so blind, as those who will not see.

Oh the bible, you make me laugh..... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851281)

It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother
me, it is the parts that I do understand.
-Mark Twain

One does well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament; the
proximity of so much impurity almost compels to this...I have searched
in it vainly for even a single congenial trait...everything in it is
cowardice and self-deception.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the
gentleman who reads it.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)

There can be no doubt that the Bible...became a stumbling-block in the
path of progress, scientific, social and even moral. It was quoted
against Copernicus as it was against Darwin.
-Preserved Smith

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
praise of intelligence.
-Bertrand Russell

With so many intelligent people warning you about it, perhaps you
should avoid it

Re:Bad call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851313)

Not even a good troll. You went WAY over the top with the glad to be ignorant bible thumping. You have to be more subtle, like a talking snake or a burning bush.

Re:Bad call (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851377)

Any God who would condemn their children to an eternity of pain and suffering solely based whether or not their beliefs match their story is a self-righteous prick and does not deserve to be a God.

Re:Bad call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851537)

And whether you think they deserve to be would determine whether or not they are?

I never understood this line of argument. If an overwhelmingly powerful alien race were orbiting our planet, and said "do this," would calling them "pricks" be particularly tactically effective as a response?

I can understand "I don't know if God exists", or "I am sure God does not exist" as a personal stance. "Well, maybe God exists, but fuck him" seems like the height of stupidity both in terms of logical soundness and rational personal choice.

P.S. Your notion of salvation is, by no means, the sole or even dominant one.

Re:Bad call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851621)

How about:

If god really is as he is decribed, then I'd rather spend eternity with the other guy.

Re:Bad call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851717)

And whether you think they deserve to be would determine whether or not they are?

I never understood this line of argument. If an overwhelmingly powerful alien race were orbiting our planet, and said "do this," would calling them "pricks" be particularly tactically effective as a response?

I can understand "I don't know if God exists", or "I am sure God does not exist" as a personal stance. "Well, maybe God exists, but fuck him" seems like the height of stupidity both in terms of logical soundness and rational personal choice.

P.S. Your notion of salvation is, by no means, the sole or even dominant one.

It's more: "maybe god exists, but it doesn't seem able or willing to make observable impacts on human affairs so fuck it"

In your analogy you would have to restrict the alines to being undetectable, and their only attributed actions being statistically insignificant or from antiquity in order for them to be comparable to "God"

Re:Bad call (2, Insightful)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about 10 months ago | (#45851737)

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? The whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus If he exists, you have four options: fuck him, fuck him, fuck him, and fuck him. If he doesn't exist, then who gives a fuck.

Re:Bad call (1, Insightful)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 10 months ago | (#45851527)

What is the difference between "belittling other people's beliefs" and what you just did? Warnings about hell and damnation are actually quite condescending if you think about it.

If you want to be free to interpret your particular favorite holy book literally, go right ahead. I believe you should be able to. The price of that freedom is allowing others to choose a different fairytale. Or none at all. And as a consequence of allowing each to freely chose their own belief is that none of them have a place in public places like schools, court rooms, or halls of government.

Re:Bad call (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 10 months ago | (#45851729)

Or... You pulled a Poe and I totally fell for it. If so, nicely done. Damn, this wouldn't happen if there weren't so many people around who write such drivel and mean it.

Re:Bad call (4, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 10 months ago | (#45851591)

All of the scientific 'facts' are easily explainable

Please you have plenty of text area to write in and use several posts. We slashoters can handle it BUT you can't use the bible to explain it. You need to explain it your self to us after all its really easy.

Re:Bad call (1, Interesting)

nattt (568106) | about 10 months ago | (#45851655)

You know, if you posit a magically all-powerful being, and have a good imagination, you can reconcile any discrepancy you find and make any story, no matter how contradictory to reality or itself, "make sense".

That said, you're obviously a poe. Nicely done. They style and content are excellent.

Re:Bad call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851241)

This. x10,000

Re:Bad call (5, Insightful)

Galaga88 (148206) | about 10 months ago | (#45851267)

The debate isn't about convincing the creationists - it's about convincing anybody on the fence.

It's an unfortunate fact that it's necessary to constantly have fact-based evidence floating out there to counter the enormous amount of irrational nonsense. It's not necessarily the best voice that wins, but often the loudest.

Re:Bad call (5, Insightful)

PlastikMissle (2498382) | about 10 months ago | (#45851385)

I'd upvote this if I have any points today!

I used to be a creationist who was closer to the fence than most, and it was material like this proposed debate that finally lit a bulb in my head and allowed me to cross over.

I listened to an old interview with the late Carl Sagan on Science Friday last week, and one of his bones of contention was the haughtiness of the scientific community in regards to reacting to pseudo science.

Re:Bad call (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851431)

So there is video evidence of the big bang happening. And also video evidence that god does not exist?

What everyone on both sides needs to realize is you literally cannot prove either theory. And when I say literally, I mean literally. It is impossible. The theory of evolution requires that god does not exist, which cannot be proven. The theory of creationism requires that god does exist, which also cannot be proven.

It's actually more sad that evolutionists don't realize they are also religious fanatics.

Re:Bad call (5, Insightful)

PlastikMissle (2498382) | about 10 months ago | (#45851497)

Bullshit. The theory of evolution does not require that you prove that god does not exist. It just redefines what god (if you believe in him) did and didn't do.

Re:Bad call (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 10 months ago | (#45851443)

The debate isn't about convincing the creationists - it's about convincing anybody on the fence.

I don't think there are anyone on the fence. The whole creationist idea is so patently ridiculous that no-one believes it.
I think creationists pretend to believe it and defend it so fiercely precisely for two reasons:
1: Because they don't really believe it, and need to convince their pastors and congregation that they do.
2: Because coming out and stating that it's utter bull would be such a major loss of face - it takes less courage to defend a lie to the end than to admit to having lied consistently for a long time.

Re:Bad call (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 10 months ago | (#45851601)

Thinking that your opponents don't believe what they say they believe is almost always a mistake.

There are millions of creationists who believe, utterly and sincerely, that God created the world and everything in it in six days a few thousand years ago. They believe that the same way you believe in gravity. Of course their beliefs are "patently ridiculous"--it doesn't matter. The belief itself is real, and you underestimate that reality at your peril.

Re:Bad call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851721)

Just to be clear, are you using "creationism" to mean "6000-year-old Earth", or "any concept involving a divine being", or are you doing the usual thing of making a scientific argument against the first and then non-sequituring the conclusion upon the second?

Re:Bad call (2, Interesting)

innerweb (721995) | about 10 months ago | (#45851523)

Serious question: Is this a real problem anywhere in the world besides the US and certain Middle Eastern countries?

Re:Bad call (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 10 months ago | (#45851669)

Serious question: Is this a real problem anywhere in the world besides the US and certain Middle Eastern countries?

I am not sure, thought it was mostly the US where creationists actually find purchase with legislators and education boards and such. Not sure what Islam says about Genesis, but they share the same God. Maybe they do have creationists attacking their education system too, but still have too many more pressing problems for this to be apparent?

Re:Bad call (1, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about 10 months ago | (#45851279)

Especially when it will be in Kentucky at their pet "Museum" in front of a cheering section consisting of a stacked deck of closed minds.
Really, what's the point?

Re:Bad call (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 10 months ago | (#45851363)

It's impossible to debate a scientific subject with someone who doesn't know the science. You end up with a Gish gallop [wikipedia.org] that's impossible to keep up with or refute reasonably.

Re:Bad call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851375)

Ham knows the science, he just doesn't believe it. He's an idiot, but not uneducated.

Re:Bad call (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45851419)

Either way, I expect for a wildly entertaining evening.

Re:Bad call (1, Informative)

Tom (822) | about 10 months ago | (#45851493)

This, a thousand times. You especially don't battle them on their own turf, giving credibility not only to the idiot, but also to his idiot theme park.

Waste of Time (3, Insightful)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 10 months ago | (#45851157)

Reminds me of that old (possibly apocryphal) Twain quote: Don't try to teach a pig to sing - it'll waste your time and annoy the pig. Ham has his view, and no amount of actual data will change that. Heck, even the old Earth creationists think the guy's fundamentally dishonest.

Re:Waste of Time (1, Troll)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 10 months ago | (#45851259)

I got invited to a local church once for a creationist lecture and got into a question and answer season with the speaker. I did not change the speaker but I might have changed a few of the other peoples change their mind.
Of course it probably helped that I am both a christian and believe in evolution.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

rmstar (114746) | about 10 months ago | (#45851403)

Of course it probably helped that I am both a christian and believe in evolution.

How do you pull that off? I mean, evolution on one hand and a personal god on the other are really incompatible ideas. Sounds to me as if you are just deluding yourself.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851507)

I'm an atheist, but it's completely possible to believe in God and evolution. Not everyone who is a christian believes the bible is literal.

I was speaking to my great uncle, who happens to be a practicing Catholic priest and somehow the creation story came up. He flatly said it is simply a story and in no way actually happened.

Re:Waste of Time (0)

rmstar (114746) | about 10 months ago | (#45851671)

I'm an atheist, but it's completely possible to believe in God and evolution. Not everyone who is a christian believes the bible is literal.

Sure. But what the hell do they actually believe in and why are they not embarrassed?

I was speaking to my great uncle, who happens to be a practicing Catholic priest and somehow the creation story came up. He flatly said it is simply a story and in no way actually happened.

Ok. But so WTF does he actually believe in? Evolution + personal god? That's a contradiction, you know? The seven day creationists are at least consistent (whacky to the bone).

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851751)

He thinks God put evolution in place, then let it happen.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about 10 months ago | (#45851801)

There is a significant portion of christians that doesn't take the bible literally.

Re:Waste of Time (4, Insightful)

robot_love (1089921) | about 10 months ago | (#45851451)

I've always found this particular combination confusing. If evolutionary theory is true, there were no physical Adam and Eve. If there were no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, we do not need Christ's atonement.

If we don't need Christ's atonement, what possible use could there be for being a Christian?

Not trying to be confrontational, just wondering how you reconciled these things.

Re:Waste of Time (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 10 months ago | (#45851515)

You go to church to get laid. Duh. The girls are preselected for gullibility.

What is the opposite of 'sausage fest'?

Re:Waste of Time (4, Informative)

Xaedalus (1192463) | about 10 months ago | (#45851543)

It's called biblical ineffability--it's the idea that the Bible is NOT the literal Word of God, it is an allusion-and-metaphor filled collection of memoirs and tales by prophets inspired by God, and must be treated as such. Adopting that viewpoint allows one to read through the Bible as a rough guide, using critical thinking and personal experience to figure out for oneself what God or His prophets are saying.

Re:Waste of Time (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 10 months ago | (#45851637)

My faith is not up for debate. It is my faith but my church does not believe in original sin. The university that is run by my church teaches evolution in science courses. If you do not believe that is fine and your choice and I will not try to convince you otherwise. Frankly that would be as foolish of a task as to try and convince the creator of the creationist museum he is wrong.

But if you want the simple 5 cent explanation I can give it to you. God loves the truth. Anything that is not based on truth does not serve God. When creationists cook the books or tell half truths they are not in service to God. Or to put it really simply, it is not my job to tell God how to do his job it is my job to learn.
At best I can only hope to show that a christian does not have to be your enemy.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45851663)

You just follow Jesus's teaching as guidelines, without obsessing about the other stories that were made up in the book when hard questions didn't seem to have answers.

Some people believe in a god who set the universe's rules and pushed the button, let things evolve to their current (predestined) state, and loves all of his toys.

It is a bit confusing, but a lot less than young earth stuff because its doesn't change the obviousness of evolution (and a society following "love thy neighbor" rules isn't a bad way to operate).

Re:Waste of Time (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 10 months ago | (#45851767)

Adam and Eve are a metaphor. Humans one day woke up smart and have been regretting it ever since - that's the original sin.

Re: Waste of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851799)

You have succinctly stated Ham's reasoning. It's quite correct, he just selects religion over evidence.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851809)

I can't answer for the parent poster's own beliefs, but reconciling "no literal Adam and Eve as specified in Biblical lineages" with "original sin" is not at all difficult when understanding "original sin" as it has been for centuries (up to about two millennia...) in major Christian traditions. Specifically, the "original" in "original sin" isn't that Adam/Eve did something naughty 6000 years ago; it's that humans are sinners from their origin (from birth), rather than becoming sinners by being mislead to commit sins later in life. As Martin Luther put it, a sinner is someone who doesn't love God with their entire being, nor their neighbor as themself, but is instead "curved inward" in selfishness --- a condition one is born with (original) and needs salvation from, above and beyond forgiveness for the multitude of sins committed as a result of being a sinner.

The specific problems that some vocal modern "fundamentalist" Christians have with evolution are typically tied to fairly recent (as in, 19th century) theological frameworks, which tend towards the heretical in their understanding of sin (and Biblical interpretation) in comparison to older teachings throughout Christianity.

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851519)

Yea! I'm also a Christian, and a scientist, who has no problem with evolution. It's just common sense. Things change, morph, mutate, etc., sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

I'm not sure of your exact beliefs, but I think what trips most people up is getting too literal with the wording of the Bible. It was written by men, and (mis) translated by men. Who are we to say it's perfectly exactly right word-for-word?

What deeply troubles me is all these people who I would hope were really smart, and therefore open-minded, but yet they're all sure there is no God. Yet they have zero proof, evidence, or any tangible facts to disprove the existence of a being greater than our universe. Why is it so difficult to imagine being a fish in an aquarium, who doesn't know much about the outside world? Let alone other planets or stars.

1) Hey all you atheists: where did the Big Bang come from?
2) What is the downside of believing in a God? What's the harm? From what I can observe, religious people do far more good in the world than atheists. Why do you even care if someone believes in the tooth fairy, let alone a God?

Re:Waste of Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851605)

You're a scientist, and you want someone to supply proof that god does not exist? If you really were a scientist you would know that the burden of proof is on the person claiming that god exists.

Re:Waste of Time (1)

Surak_Prime (160061) | about 10 months ago | (#45851613)

Ham... pig....

We see what you did there. :-D

Why? (1)

rs79 (71822) | about 10 months ago | (#45851159)

Since they hold no precept to reason, they've already cut press releases to the faithful saying they won; in their world it's true.

Those who do abide by reason already know it's true; this won't make it any more true.

I really don't see what this will accomplish. If somebody *wants* to learn, they'll wiki it and learn from that starting point. It they don't, pushing it in their face just wastes time and annoys the pig.

So sorry fo Bill Nye (2)

quax (19371) | about 10 months ago | (#45851173)

Guess somebody has to do this kind of yeoman's work.

Wasted effort? (3, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 10 months ago | (#45851175)

If creationist were open for debate, then they wouldn't be creationist and believe what was written by somebody hundreds of years ago without accepting any revisions.

Re:Wasted effort? (3, Insightful)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | about 10 months ago | (#45851335)

Exactly you cannot preach logic, reason and facts to people that think logic, reason and facts are the work of the Devil.

Get ready... (1, Funny)

Naatach (574111) | about 10 months ago | (#45851177)

/popcorn

That is so funny... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851185)

...because every time some big debate between creationists and scientists happens the science only ends up proving the creationists point. I would love to see this debate.

Re:That is so funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851589)

the science only ends up proving the creationists point

Just as your post proves beyond any doubt that there is no god.

Re:That is so funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851643)

Well, they made a compelling point against evolution by exposing themselves as counter-example.

If anything I feel ashamed to be of the same species as them. One thing is to be ignorant but to be willingly ignorant ought to be a sin.

Captcha: morals

Dammit bill. You're smart enough to know.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851217)

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Support the creation museum? (3, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 10 months ago | (#45851221)

This won't turn out well. $25/ticket, supporting the morons in a profit making venture. Fuck no. Not that I'm in the neighborhood.

Only creationists will show up, bog knows who they'll get to moderate. Local southern baptist minister?

I see. 'if monkeys turned into humans how come there are still monkeys?' followed by a shout down in this 'debate'.

And for the first time, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851223)

I actually want to visit the Creation "Museum."

Why bother? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851235)

In the middle ages the great majority of people were convinced the world was flat and if you sailed past the edge monsters would devour you. The number of people that believed that did not make it real, the same way that the number of people that believe in creation does not make their belief real (Notice I do not call it a theory). Creationists are only good to have fun and a good laugh. Stop treating them seriously

Re:Why bother? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851433)

In the 21st century, the great majority of people were convince in AGW climate change and if we didn't stop burning fossil fuels, all the ice on the planet would melt and drown everyone. The number of people that believed that does not make it real, the same way that the number of people that believe in natural climate change that might do the same thing does not make their belief real. AGW climate change people have no humor, so don't laugh at them. It just makes them crazy...

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851549)

Sorry, I don't get your point. Are you trying to make me laugh?
Why, so that someone may get angry?

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851743)

He's just engaging in the common reddit debating technique where somebody takes a valid argument, then changes the subject, totally misunderstands the original point, and creates a "rebuttal" that's incoherent, idiotic, and totally irrelevant. Then he feels smugly smart, but to everybody else he looks like yet another mindless shit-spewing hipster.

This Will Not End Well (1)

CasualFriday (1804992) | about 10 months ago | (#45851251)

One is arguing on logic while the other is arguing on faith. Neither will ever be able to see the other as universally correct since they are basically standing on different planets. It's like one of them is speaking Farsi and the other is speaking Spanish. Bill Nye is falling right into this guy's trap. At the end all he has to do is say "well my faith is unshaken, I know the real truth" and everyone who agrees with him will smile victoriously. This will be quite the exercise in futility.

Re:This Will Not End Well (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#45851355)

Except that Ham and his ilk are not arguing on faith, they are making specific claims, virtually every one of which was debunked decades ago.

Re:This Will Not End Well (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851555)

Use logic to explain how the material which was used to cause the big bang, thus creating the cosmos, existed before the cosmos.

Ok, good. Now use logic to explain the same thing without using faith (translated to scientist-speak: assumptions without proof) at all.

Teaching dogmas in school... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851273)

I think the main difference between the darwinian evolution vs creationism is that creationism is not a "theory" it is a dogma... it is what it is and no further questions!!! Nothing stops the "evolution of the species" theories from evolving... So i think (and in my country they do that) that you should teach the classical greek creationism theories but if you are teaching kids about biology you must emphasize on the CURRENT scientific theory and not in some 2500 year old dogma.

Disclaimer: I am not bashing the dogma i'm just saying that a school is not the best place for it...

Re:Teaching dogmas in school... (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | about 10 months ago | (#45851575)

I disagree. Teaching dogmas AND critical thinking in school is excellent. Why should anyone fear teaching Creationism side-by-side with Evolution in a science class, especially given that our school system does a passable job of teaching rebellious teens critical thinking? Creationism falls apart when critical thinking is applied to it... always has (unless a threat of force to believe no matter what is applied).

Article title correction: (3, Insightful)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | about 10 months ago | (#45851303)

"Bill Nye to publicly punch self in genitals repeatedly."

I mean, the result will most likely be the same, will it not?

Re:Article title correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851389)

How is merely arguing with some Christians going to rupture his testicles, tangle his vas deferens, bruise his glans, and crumple his penile spout? Talking doesn't do that kind of damage to a man's genitals.

Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851305)

And after such a debate no doubt afterwards the issue will be completely resolved..

Nye will wipe the floor with Neanderthal Ham (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851343)

Sadly, religious idiots will not see it that way. As was previously mentioned, these nootnicks believe that they have already won.

Debate rules are always unfair to science. (4, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#45851353)

In philosophical debates, and in legal courtroom battles, both sides get equal time. That seems to be fair. But when it comes to science, equal time for both sides is unfair. When science has so much more evidence to show, restricting it to the same time whatever the other side manages to come up with is unfair.

Further, most of the "arguments" for creationism is asking questions, asking for proof about evolution or to explain this anomaly or that observation. Asking questions is easy, answering them takes much longer. So again it is unfair to give equal time to questions and answers.

Science demands full disclosure, sufficient time to review the evidence and to get a consensus on what the data is. Then the argument is about what explains the data. This creationism debate is not likely to persuade the creationists, it is likely to frustrate the scientists.

It is a fools errand. Best thing to do is to let them disbelieve in evolution and let us trust evolution to drive the creationists to extinction. In the last 400 years science has done a lot to reduce the influence of creationists and reduced their numbers a lot. Just read the Creationist rhetoric from 1920s or 1950s or 1870s and compare it the current set of arguments, you will see how weak their ilk has become. The only serious bastion for creationists are the fundamentalists in Islam and fundamentalist right wingers in the USA. Almost all the rest of the developed world have moved on, most of America has also accepted the explanatory powers of evolution. Just wait for these creationists to join the Dinosaurs.

I'm glad (4, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about 10 months ago | (#45851357)

Finally, it will be settled and we can all get on with our lives.

Truely pointless debate (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 10 months ago | (#45851369)

I wish Bill Nye would do something actually useful.

Is Bill Nye qualified? (5, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 10 months ago | (#45851387)

I have a question for the readers with professional qualifications (ie - PhD's):

Is Bill Nye qualified?

His Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] lists him as a scientist. He has no advanced degree, only a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. He has a couple of patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes, and served as "honorary professor" for five years.

Every time the "can amateurs do real science" question comes up, the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site. You can't do real science without an advanced degree, institutional funding, and collaboration.

In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.

Does he qualify as "gentleman scientist" [wikipedia.org] ?

Is he the right person as spokesman for science in this debate?

(I applaud Bill Nye's contributions to science and education, and think he's eminently qualified. I just wanted to hear what the professionals think of his status as a scientist.)

Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45851423)

A rhododendron bush is qualified to make Ken Ham look like an idiot.

Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (2)

roninmagus (721889) | about 10 months ago | (#45851509)

Just out of curiosity, how many minutes ago was it that you googled "Ken Ham"?

Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45851797)

a) I don't think I ever have
b) I used to be around on the JREF forums and heard plenty about his own special brand of crazy science from there
c) What difference does it make, since I was only making a dumb joke to get a cheap laugh?

Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (1)

genner (694963) | about 10 months ago | (#45851481)

I have a question for the readers with professional qualifications (ie - PhD's):

Is Bill Nye qualified?

His Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] lists him as a scientist. He has no advanced degree, only a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. He has a couple of patents, including one for ballet pointe shoes, and served as "honorary professor" for five years.

Every time the "can amateurs do real science" question comes up, the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site. You can't do real science without an advanced degree, institutional funding, and collaboration.

In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.

Does he qualify as "gentleman scientist" [wikipedia.org] ?

Is he the right person as spokesman for science in this debate?

(I applaud Bill Nye's contributions to science and education, and think he's eminently qualified. I just wanted to hear what the professionals think of his status as a scientist.)

That's interesting so Ham actually has more related schooling with his BA in Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology

Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (2)

Yosho (135835) | about 10 months ago | (#45851499)

Every time the "can amateurs do real science" question comes up, the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site. You can't do real science without an advanced degree, institutional funding, and collaboration.

Where has anybody here ever said that amateurs can't do real science? Freaking high school students can do science -- and anybody who has a BS degree in mechanical engineering is not an amateur, anyway.

In particular, he doesn't have a degree in evolutionary biology. He's an entertainer.

So what? You don't need a degree in evolutionary biology to understand how evolution works. Any high school student who pays attention in their biology class should understand it. He's a skilled public speaker and understands the scientific process, and those are really the only credentials he needs to deal with somebody like Ken Ham.

Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (2)

siwelwerd (869956) | about 10 months ago | (#45851699)

I've never thought of him as a scientist, but as a science educator. Two very different things.

Re:Is Bill Nye qualified? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851715)

The dude guest starred on StarGate Atlantis. What more do you want?

Should be an easy debate... (0)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 10 months ago | (#45851401)

This we all know: the universe spontaneously exploded into existence, without any divine assistance, some 14 billion years ago and coalesced into stars orbited by rocky planets. Water condensed out of the interstellar gases and filled the earth with oceans, whereupon carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen reacted in the primordial atmosphere to form amino acids that then self-assembled into self-replicating molecules that then caused the self-assembly of functioning cell membranes comprised of proteins and fatty acids that then began dividing and reproducing into the multitude of life forms present today. This was all made possible by a fortuitous arrangement of rocky substrates in deep ocean trenches that facilitated the combining of the proper molecules into the proper order on the rocky surfaces. After a certain length of time had passed, the early cells began randomly forming into male and female forms to allow better combination of nucleic material than that allowed by random mutation (although that has been good enough for bacteria and viruses for that the last 4 billion years). The creation guy doesn't have a chance.

That's not possible (2)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 10 months ago | (#45851417)

Debate is predicated upon reason. To be a creationist you need to be irrational, so there cannot be a debate here. Instead we'll get the polite (or maybe not so polite) equivalent of a shouting match and people will point to it as if it were a debate.

Not to mention that there is nothing to debate. The debate is settled: creationism is not an accurate description of reality. If you think it is then you are wrong, unless you have some pretty bad-ass evidence, like winged humanoids without free will or DNA, or a giraffe skeleton from the Cambrian.

Re:That's not possible (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 10 months ago | (#45851719)

To be a creationist you need to be irrational, so there cannot be a debate here.

It's a little more complicated than that. Have you ever listened to Ken Ham speak, or read anything he's written? His arguments are entirely logical, as long as you accept his premises. He starts with a certain set of assumptions (mainly the literal truth of Genesis) and reasons from there. The premises themselves are utterly irrational, of course, but that doesn't mean everything else he says is necessarily irrational as well. In fact, he has a lot in common with the generations of Catholic theologians who have built the intellectual foundation of the Church, applying their often-impressive powers of reason and debate to exploring the logical implications of a profoundly silly set of postulates. It's kind of amusing to see a fundamentalist Protestant arguing like a Jesuit, but that's neither here nor there ...

We should probably expand AIG in that summary (3, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45851421)

The AiG this guy is from is the young-earth creationist group, with a lower-case "i". The AIG we hear of more often in the media is the "American Insurance Group", which is not related. The font that slashdot renders this in does not help in distinguishing a lower-case from a capiltalized I.

Bill Nye should (0)

future assassin (639396) | about 10 months ago | (#45851445)

ask Ken Ham to disprove science with out the use of the bible or bible quotes.

The Real Debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45851483)

The real Debate would be between Bill Nye and Rodney McKay!

Do not stereotype all creationists. (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#45851559)

The genus of Creationists has many species.

The most common one is Creationist vulgaris. (vulgar means common in Latin, it does not mean crude). They are the rank and file people who chip in money and votes. The votes and the money form the base of the food pyramid of this genus. The C vulgaris can be relied up on to show up for rallys, to cheer their side in "debates".

One level up the food chain comes Creationist predatori minoria. These are the local parish level civic leaders, community organizers. They too sincerely believe in creationism and believe not believing in it would cause gloom and doom. And they convince themselves, that to have strong faith means they have to believe in creationism despite the obvious and patent evidence they see against it. But mostly these people go for local fame, some local power and a feeling of self importance. These are the ones used by the species higher in the food pyramid to access the nourishment created by the C vulgaris.

The highest level of this ecological niche is occupied the head honcho, the top predator, Creationist predatori majoria. Their meal ticket is C vulgaris. They will send newsletters, gather them into lectures and scare them into donating big money for the "cause". They will convince C predatori minoria to gather the flock and deliver them to the creation museum each paying $24.99 or whatever and buy "Jesus" T shirts at 40$ a pop.

So please do not treat all the Creationists as one and the same. Pity the C vulgaris, for he does not know what he is doing. Try to show the self aggrandizement and obvious exploitation of the C predatori majoria to the minoria to make them less enthusiastic about being hand maidens in this enterprise. Starved of the nutrition, the majoria will diminish greatly in size. Hopefully.

Nye was right (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 10 months ago | (#45851691)

Teaching creationism to kids is simply telling them lies. Would you tell your child that Jello just appears in cups? Would you tell them that water comes from the sky? Basically would you make other insane claims with no defense? Of course you wouldn't, so why would you tell them that a magic invisible man created them!

Of course if you teach them the extreme theory of creationism in a religion class then fine, just leave it out of science, creationism is as much science as harry potter is.

When you read the bible and claim it's fact you also have to read harry potter and claim it's fact.

Excercise in Futility (4, Informative)

organgtool (966989) | about 10 months ago | (#45851705)

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"

Besides the advice in that quote, the outcome of this "debate" won't change a thing. Creationists argue from emotional responses generated in their amygdalas. You can't change their minds with facts and reasoning because they are not open to the possibility of being wrong or learning something new. If it's possible to change their minds at all, and that's a pretty big "if", you will have to first win them over emotionally before they will let their guards down and attempt to actually follow the lines of reasoning you lay down for them. The most likely outcome in this debate is that you stomp the creationists with facts which will cause the people on your side to feel that they have won, but the reality is that you will probably be perceived by your opposition as a pompous jerk who is attempting to destroy their belief system just for fun, causing the rift between the two sides to grow bigger.

It is impossible to debate a creationist (5, Informative)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 10 months ago | (#45851749)

Debates are built on logic and facts.

Creationists choose faith over logic and facts. This isn't me being judgmental; they openly admit this, and take pride in it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?