tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post6185784409260895567..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: Initial Thoughts on the Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate...Jimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-16990192814494639162014-02-08T06:31:37.830-05:002014-02-08T06:31:37.830-05:00Thanks for the summary. Like the vast majority of...Thanks for the summary. Like the vast majority of Americans, I did not watch the debate. Unfortunately for many skeptics and unbelievers Mr. Ham and his crowd represent Christianity and its attitude toward science and facts. And that does nothing but drive them away from the faith. Thanks for being a sensible voice in this.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640663629610290592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-16186943529866898332014-02-05T17:39:25.720-05:002014-02-05T17:39:25.720-05:00Two follow-up points:
1. Reviewing the debate, I ...Two follow-up points:<br /><br />1. Reviewing the debate, I think Nye did much better in the opening arguments, but he lost the plot during Q&A.<br /><br />2. Nye's central premise - that having a lot of creationists in the country will stagnate American development - is unpersuasive to me for two reasons. First, technology developed outside the U.S. can be (and generally is) imported. It doesn't have to be invented here to benefit us. Second, it is perfectly possible to be a productive scientist who rejects evolution or an old earth so long as you are working in a field that doesn't make use of those scientific facts. When creationists start chairing the life sciences and geology departments of our major universities, *that's* when we need to worry about stagnation in those fields.AMWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-7147718076369577632014-02-05T16:53:33.528-05:002014-02-05T16:53:33.528-05:00This is a very interesting take on the debate. I w...This is a very interesting take on the debate. I watched it, too, and felt that Bill Nye was the better debater. Ken Ham is a good speaker, don't get me wrong, but on the night, he seemed to go off topic a lot and evaded direct questions from Bill Nye.<br /><br />Specifically, Bill Nye asked what predictions Creationism make, and as far as I could gather, Ken Ham did not answer this question.<br /><br />Nye's comment about the feasibility of the ark and the number of species involved, although somewhat poorly constructed, was still pertinent. How COULD so many species evolve from the small number of 'kinds' in such a short amount of time, without being noticed and documented? <br /><br />I liked how Bill Nye referred to 'the Ken Ham model of Creation' and not merely 'Creation' and that billions of people believe in a deity while rejecting 'the Ken Ham model of Creation'. <br /><br />During the Q&A session, they were asked: What,if anything, would cause you to change your mind?<br />Ken Ham: Nothing.<br />Bill Nye: Evidence.<br /><br />I think that pretty much sums up the debate. <br /><br />Ultimately, it doesn't matter who 'won' the debate, because that is not how science is done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-4536632055869149452014-02-05T16:40:25.631-05:002014-02-05T16:40:25.631-05:00Your take on the debate is much more pessimistic t...Your take on the debate is much more pessimistic than mine. I was expecting Ham to do a Gish Gallop all over Nye, and wasn't confident that Nye would be able to rein it back in. Ultimately, Ham spent far more time talking about how important it is to believe the Bible than he did providing actual arguments that the creationist model is viable.<br /><br />Nye DID miss some sweet opportunities to nail Ham's obfuscations. He should have pointed out that although studies support dogs arising from a single breeding population and humans are all of one race, there is NO evidence that the breeding population of dogs or humans was ever comprised of just two individuals.<br /><br />I got the sense that Nye had done his homework on why the creation model is unsound. I did not get the sense that he bothered to really know a lot of the creationist arguments against evolution or an old earth so that he could convincingly counter them. When asked about the second law of thermodynamics, for instance, he noted in passing that the earth isn't a closed system and then started rambling about car engines and fuel sources. This is why, some weeks ago, I lamented that it wouldn't be Ken Miller vs. Ham. Miller knows all the creationist arguments out there and how to demonstrate that they're pretty silly.<br /><br />Still, I think it's possible that some undecideds (or even creationists who weren't die-hard true believers) had their eyes opened to some of the cracks in the creation model. Most creationists *never* see someone taking on their favorite speakers, let alone in the charming, non-threatening way that Nye was able to pull off.AMWnoreply@blogger.com