Bill Nye to debate Ken Ham?!

Unless Bill Nye has found some way to defeat the Gish Gallop, and clean up the confusion as fast as Ham can create it. I doubt anyone can do that.

It can be done, but Nye does not have training. He is not a Jedi yet.

He should recuse himself and let Nick or Aron Ra debate in his stead. Or myself...

You have to have a come-back to all the quote mines. You have to have the TO quote mine memorized.

You have to have a comeback when they start bullshitting about radiometric dating. Does he know what an isochron is?

You have to know paleontology. Can Bill Bye list two dozen transitional fossils off the top of his head? I sincerely doubt it. What will he say when they cite Oxnard 1975?

He'll get chewed up. He should let a Jedi take his place.

Hambone has other goals aside from gaining elevation by association with Nye. He will use this as an opportunity to raise money bilk more credulous followers to fund his state supported ark park boongogle.

Agree to participate only under certain conditions:
1.the earth is a sphere
2.the earth revolves around the sun
3.modern dating techniques are reliable, the earth is 4.5 billion years old
4.(almost) every multicellular animal has a mother
5.stick to a single subject, like the transformation of a certain line of sarcopterygian fish into tetrapods or
6.assistents who have laptops with databases of all sorts of information are allowed (in chess every now and then top grandmasters play against each other with the assistence of chess opening databases)

This is just from the top of my head. Feel free to add or remove conditions

A related Bill Nye article:
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/01/bill-nye-interview-asteroids-climate-science-politics

I agree with Matt in urgently urging Nye not to debate the Hambone - see also http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

There are a few pointers for Nye at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating-creationists.html. See also http://www.csicop.org/si/show/debating_creationists/

Insist on an unbiased moderator and a balanced audience. Debate on neutral ground, not in a church. Insist on a live program - not an edited video to be released later.

Better yet, don't do it - it only lends credibility to liars and scoundrels.

The imported Ham must have made Nye an offer he couldn't refuse.
Hopefully, someone close to Nye will get the word to him that this is not a good way to make a buck...not at all...regrets
would soon follow.

Probably too late now - Ken Ham'd just shift to "Nye is scared to debate me" mode.

Roy

First, is Nye an expert in evolution? Does he know all of the details? Does he know how to answer honest questions? Does he know how to answer dishonest questions? Can he recognize quote mines? Does he know what to say in response to "were you there"? Does he know how to respond to the claim that dinosaurs were on the magic ark?

Second, what are the rules for the "debate"? Is there a moderator? WIll the GIsh gallop be allowed? Who will get the last word? WIll it be handled in a fair and impartial manner? WIll it be live? WIll it be edited? Who does the editing? Who will have final say on the editing?

Third, is Bill ready to stoop to the level of that Ham is going to go to? Is he willing to use quote mines? Is he willing to use sound bites? Is he willing to lie, or at least bend the truth? Is he willing to point out when Ham is wrong or lying or being deceitful? I'm not saying that he should or should not do these things. I'm just saying that he should decide ahead of time, not in a moment of blind fury at the utter audacity of the charlatan he has been assuming is a decent human being.

Fourth, is BIll going to be prepared? Is he going to watch videos of Ham and learn his tricks? Is he going to have come backs ready for all of the Ham one liners? is he going to have the facts he needs to deal with the misrepresentations? Is he going to be able to deal with the insertion of religious nonsense into a science debate? Is he going to know how far in the hole the ark project is and what ludicrous means Ham is using to try to get it built anyway? Is he going to point out the utter absurdity of such a monumental hoax? Perhaps he should ask Ham why he got kicked out of Australia.

DS said: First, is Nye an expert in evolution? Does he know all of the details? Does he know how to answer honest questions? Does he know how to answer dishonest questions? Can he recognize quote mines? Does he know what to say in response to "were you there"? Does he know how to respond to the claim that dinosaurs were on the magic ark? Second, what are the rules for the "debate"? Is there a moderator? WIll the GIsh gallop be allowed? Who will get the last word? WIll it be handled in a fair and impartial manner? WIll it be live? WIll it be edited? Who does the editing? Who will have final say on the editing? Third, is Bill ready to stoop to the level of that Ham is going to go to? Is he willing to use quote mines? Is he willing to use sound bites? Is he willing to lie, or at least bend the truth? Is he willing to point out when Ham is wrong or lying or being deceitful? I'm not saying that he should or should not do these things. I'm just saying that he should decide ahead of time, not in a moment of blind fury at the utter audacity of the charlatan he has been assuming is a decent human being. Fourth, is BIll going to be prepared? Is he going to watch videos of Ham and learn his tricks? Is he going to have come backs ready for all of the Ham one liners? is he going to have the facts he needs to deal with the misrepresentations? Is he going to be able to deal with the insertion of religious nonsense into a science debate? Is he going to know how far in the hole the ark project is and what ludicrous means Ham is using to try to get it built anyway? Is he going to point out the utter absurdity of such a monumental hoax? Perhaps he should ask Ham why he got kicked out of Australia.

DS said: ...is Bill ready to stoop to the level of that Ham is going to go to? ... Is he willing to point out when Ham is wrong or lying or being deceitful? I'm not saying that he should or should not do these things. I'm just saying that he should decide ahead of time, not in a moment of blind fury at the utter audacity of the charlatan he has been assuming is a decent human being.

Perhaps a few emails to Bill from you folks with years of experience in this wilderness would change his mind--or at least alert him to pitfalls and suggest useful strategies.

b*n*s*g*@billnye.com [no asterisks]

DS suggests: Perhaps he should ask Ham why he got kicked out of Australia.

Dave Luckett said: I've often thought that what's needed to rout these guys is not a panel of professors, who are often boggled by the sheer scale of the fraud that they're expected to counter. No, it would be, say, four or five grad students who are google-savvy, and who can whip up a counter-presentation from web resources, right there, real time, and throw it on a screen... It has to be pictures, it has to be confident, and it has to be non-technical.

Just Bob said: Perhaps a few emails to Bill from you folks with years of experience in this wilderness would change his mind--or at least alert him to pitfalls and suggest useful strategies. b*n*s*g*@billnye.com [no asterisks]

Didn't Nye just do Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars in the last year or so? I respect what he's done as a science popularizer, but his recent behavior seems a bit publicity-first-quality-second.

I'm making a prediction right now.

Bill Nye will do just fine in this totally irrelevant "debate".

Let's clarify that it is totally irrelevant. No public policy is being debated. Literally no-one will have their mind changed by this "debate". No-one is going to be converted to YEC. (Already-creationist liars will pop up claiming that the debate "converted" them but they'll be lying.) None of the YEC people are going to change their minds, either. Not even if Ham breaks down blubbering in tears and begs Nye for forgiveness. It's an irrelevant exercise.

Bill Nye is a professional entertainer with a solid to excellent general grasp of many scientific topics. We'll have to see, but it won't surprise me at all if he shows up quite well prepared.

Ken Ham isn't Duane Gish. Gish had folksy charisma, actual scientific training that allowed him to "sound science-y", and an ability not to explode in rage at the slightest frustration. Ken Ham lacks all of that.

Duane Gish "debated" stodgy scientists of the type who would put their own graduate students to sleep, who inevitable showed up unprepared.

And it never mattered. Edwards happened. Dover happened.

So, while I agree that refusing the "debate" would have been optimal, my money is on Bill Nye to make Ham look like an unpleasant idiot and generate a few funny moments for Youtube. But it really doesn't matter.

eric said: Didn't Nye just do Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars in the last year or so? I respect what he's done as a science popularizer, but his recent behavior seems a bit publicity-first-quality-second.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Just Bob said: Perhaps a few emails to Bill from you folks with years of experience in this wilderness would change his mind--or at least alert him to pitfalls and suggest useful strategies. b*n*s*g*@billnye.com [no asterisks]

Exactly. We need to offer our vast collective resources and at least throw together a PowerPoint with graphics! Nick Matzke, Mike Elzinga, etc. are you listening?

Dave Luckett said:

DS suggests: Perhaps he should ask Ham why he got kicked out of Australia.

Alas, Ham didn't get kicked out of Australia. He can come back anytime. He will discover that all is not forgiven, but still, he can come back. Being a ratbag is not sufficient reason to lift a man's Australian passport, though maybe it ought to be. Nevertheless, we really shouldn't unload our spare loonies onto other countries. It isn't polite.

Seems to me (not a debater, not a scientist) that in a short format, before a live audience, that rather than trying to educate the audience on the evidence for evolution in a few minutes, what might have more 'punch' would be to put Ham on the defensive: review the history of modern creationism; bring up a few creationist claims that have been shown to be blatantly, obviously wrong (or outright lies), but that are still claimed by creationists; remind the audience of the Dover debacle--crowing about how the Christian conservative judge would give them a 'Waterloo', then their despicable trashing of him when he didn't deliver as expected; read relevant passages of AIG's pledge and contrast them with rationality; remind them, with names and statistics, that the majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution; etc.

Ham challenged Nye to debate over a year ago. I don't know if this is a response to that challenge, but apparently the idea has been in the air for some time. So Nye has had time to discuss the merits of the debate, to set rules to keep it at least somewhat fair, and to study the tactics that creationists use, as well as good responses to same.

He should have this all worked out decently, since he's had the time. If he hasn't, he deserves to look bad.

Glen Davidson

If Bill Nye has accepted an offer from Ken Ham to do a February debate, it would be honorable and ethical for Nye to actually show up and fulfill his commitment.

If Nye chickens out of the deal, if Nye has failed to evolve a backbone by now, his absence will provide plenty of good material for yet another "Genesis Station" essay.

FL

diogeneslamp0 said: It can be done, but Nye does not have training. He is not a Jedi yet. He should recuse himself and let Nick or Aron Ra debate in his stead. Or myself... You have to have a come-back to all the quote mines. You have to have the TO quote mine memorized. You have to have a comeback when they start bullshitting about radiometric dating. Does he know what an isochron is? You have to know paleontology. Can Bill Bye list two dozen transitional fossils off the top of his head? I sincerely doubt it. What will he say when they cite Oxnard 1975? He'll get chewed up. He should let a Jedi take his place.

harold said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

Just Bob said: Perhaps a few emails to Bill from you folks with years of experience in this wilderness would change his mind--or at least alert him to pitfalls and suggest useful strategies. b*n*s*g*@billnye.com [no asterisks]

Exactly. We need to offer our vast collective resources and at least throw together a PowerPoint with graphics! Nick Matzke, Mike Elzinga, etc. are you listening?

That's an excellent and constructive suggestion.

SLC said: Ham has already declined to debate Aron Ra and PZ Myers. I would point out that it is possible to debate clowns like Ham; Ken Miller debated Henry Morris and handed him his hat. However, Miller carefully prepared himself by reading everything Morris had ever written or lectured on and was fully prepared with short responses to anything that the latter might bring up. The late John Maynard Smith successfully debated Duane Gish and made him look bad.

diogeneslamp0 said: It can be done, but Nye does not have training. He is not a Jedi yet. He should recuse himself and let Nick or Aron Ra debate in his stead. Or myself... You have to have a come-back to all the quote mines. You have to have the TO quote mine memorized. You have to have a comeback when they start bullshitting about radiometric dating. Does he know what an isochron is? You have to know paleontology. Can Bill Bye list two dozen transitional fossils off the top of his head? I sincerely doubt it. What will he say when they cite Oxnard 1975? He'll get chewed up. He should let a Jedi take his place.

FL said: If Bill Nye has accepted an offer from Ken Ham to do a February debate, it would be honorable and ethical for Nye to actually show up and fulfill his commitment. If Nye chickens out of the deal, if Nye has failed to evolve a backbone by now, his absence will provide plenty of good material for yet another "Genesis Station" essay. FL

Just Bob said: Perhaps a few emails to Bill from you folks with years of experience in this wilderness would change his mind--or at least alert him to pitfalls and suggest useful strategies. b*n*s*g*@billnye.com [no asterisks]

The creationist crowd has been doing this gig for more than 30 years and they have all the rhetorical devices on their side. PLUS by allowing them to charge $25 a head for admission Nye is acting as a fund raiser for the kooks. Totally bad idea.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

Just Bob said: Perhaps a few emails to Bill from you folks with years of experience in this wilderness would change his mind--or at least alert him to pitfalls and suggest useful strategies. b*n*s*g*@billnye.com [no asterisks]

Thanks for the address. I've written asking him to reconsider. It would be better to pull out. There is no debate on the scientific merits and Nye shouldn't give Ham the unearned respect of sharing a stage. I hope his inbox fills with similar requests.

SLC said: The late John Maynard Smith successfully debated Duane Gish and made him look bad.

diogeneslamp0 said:

SLC said: The late John Maynard Smith successfully debated Duane Gish and made him look bad.

You've mentioned this before. Is there a link or transcript?

DS said:

SLC said: Ham has already declined to debate Aron Ra and PZ Myers. I would point out that it is possible to debate clowns like Ham; Ken Miller debated Henry Morris and handed him his hat. However, Miller carefully prepared himself by reading everything Morris had ever written or lectured on and was fully prepared with short responses to anything that the latter might bring up. The late John Maynard Smith successfully debated Duane Gish and made him look bad.

diogeneslamp0 said: It can be done, but Nye does not have training. He is not a Jedi yet. He should recuse himself and let Nick or Aron Ra debate in his stead. Or myself... You have to have a come-back to all the quote mines. You have to have the TO quote mine memorized. You have to have a comeback when they start bullshitting about radiometric dating. Does he know what an isochron is? You have to know paleontology. Can Bill Bye list two dozen transitional fossils off the top of his head? I sincerely doubt it. What will he say when they cite Oxnard 1975? He'll get chewed up. He should let a Jedi take his place.

That is why I questioned Nye's credentials? Is he a biologist? Is he an evolutionary biologist? Is he familiar with the molecular and genetic evidence? Is he familiar with the developmental evidence? Is he familiar with the fossil evidence? Is he familiar with all of the creationist misrepresentations of all of this evidence? Ham probably refused to debate anyone he thought was a real expert. Let's hope that Nye will surprise him if he decides to go through with this.

Bill Nye need not fear being accused of backing out of the 'debate'. Science is not done in debates. Objective reality is not determined by the skill of the debater or the perception of a lay audience about who 'won'.

All he needs to do is challenge Ham to debate scientific issues in a scientific forum. That means submitting peer-reviewed papers to recognized scientific journals in the appropriate fields. It means presenting at genuine scientific conferences. And at the core, it means performing replicable experiments and presenting the results and data in a standard format in a recognized forum.

Well, the “debate” is being announced over at AiG.

This is the worst possible venue for such a debate because it takes place on the exclusive territory of Ken Ham; and you know the place with be jammed with his hooting followers.

At $25 per ticket, this is a money maker for Ham. Furthermore, Ham controls the publicity and the distribution of any videos of the debate; and that will make it hard for outside observers to study ID/creationist debating tactics, let alone find out who “wins” the debate.

I am a bit surprised that Bill Nye got suckered into this particular venue. Science isn’t done by debates in churches and sectarian “museums;” and ID/creationists can’t stand the crucible of peer-reviewed research. ID/creationists die when entering a lab.

Somebody should point Bill Nye to Miller's debates on YouTube. Actually, watching any debate with a YEC would be helpful.

Bill Nye need not fear being accused of backing out of the ‘debate’. Science is not done in debates. Objective reality is not determined by the skill of the debater or the perception of a lay audience about who ‘won’.

If Nye chooses not to back out, I hope he would at least insist the proceeds go to an organization like the NCSE instead of Ham's execrable "museum."

So the debate is at AIG. Imagine that. Well here are the rules:

1) The "audience" will be composed exclusively of creationist supporters. They will applaud any statement made by Ham, now matter how ridiculous or divorced form reality and they will boo loudly at anything Nye says, no matter how well reasoned or appropriate.

2) Ham will have no time limit and no one will stop him or prevent him from going on for as long as he wants on any topic at all. Nye on the other hand will get only one minute to reply to any question posed to him and will not be allowed to respond to any other statements made my Ham or anyone else. Time will be kept by and ID supporter using an intelligently designed watch that may or may not be accurate.

3) The final video will be edited and marketed exclusively by AIG and Nye will probably never even know how it is butchered, since he will have to sign away all of his rights before the debate. AIG will market the video and doubtless receive all profits, which will be used to bribe officials to loan Ham the money he needs to complete his magic ark hoax.

Bill, I would strongly advise you to reconsider. Demand that the debate be held on your terms or not at all. If you don't, you will only get what you deserve.

... only add to the prominence of your opponent, who can now say, “See, I debated a prominent scientist...”

Alternatively, send a no-name like myself to the podium, and encourage Ham (or creo du jour) to claim, "I debated a burnt-out hippie with no credentials whatsoever!"

Did Einstein debate 'newtonists' to establish the validity of general relativity?

Did Bohr debate classicists (right term?) to 'win' for quantum mechanics?

Mr. Ham: take a lesson from these guys on how you get science and eventually the public to acknowledge the validity of an idea out of the current mainstream. They did it, and they didn't even have God behind them.

Like Bill Dembski?

Dover = Waterloo!

The Nye has been cast.

The 2014 theme for AIG is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids”, and this is certainly an interesting way for AIG to put those words into action.

Karen S. said:

The 2014 theme for AIG is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids”, and this is certainly an interesting way for AIG to put those words into action.

Sure beats research, huh?

Floyd said: The 2014 theme for AIG is "Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids"

bring the creation/evolution issue to the attention of many more people, including youngsters.

Mr. Nye and our debate audience that observational science confirms the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account of origins, not evolution.

Has anyone heard anything about this from Bill himself?

Let Stephen Meyer debate Ken Ham about alternate ID/creation bullpucky. The discussion about the Cambrian explosion should be a hoot.

harold said:

eric said: Didn't Nye just do Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars in the last year or so? I respect what he's done as a science popularizer, but his recent behavior seems a bit publicity-first-quality-second.

His job is "entertainer". The guy has to work gigs to make a living. I can see a mild argument against "Celebrity Apprentice" (Trump is offensive). I don't see anything particularly wrong with anyone appearing on "Dancing With the Stars".

Karen S. said:

The 2014 theme for AIG is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids”, and this is certainly an interesting way for AIG to put those words into action.

Sure beats research, huh?

Mr. Nye and our debate audience that observational science confirms the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account of origins, not evolution.

Oh, "observational science." No doubt Ham will rule out all "historical science." That is, "evolution hasn't been observed since it happened in the past." So predictable.

From AiG website (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science):

"The examples of science used in the textbooks show only operational (observational) science. This type of science, which makes observations and repeated experiments in the present, allows us to produce technology that benefits mankind. Evolution does not fit within the definition of operational science and should be classified as historical (origins) science."

IanR said: From AiG website (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science): "The examples of science used in the textbooks show only operational (observational) science. This type of science, which makes observations and repeated experiments in the present, allows us to produce technology that benefits mankind. Evolution does not fit within the definition of operational science and should be classified as historical (origins) science."

The example I have used when biologists made arguments about historical events being different because they are not reproducible is this: Toss a coin 1000 times, record the results. Can we analyze them statistically? Sure, by various methods. Now add one wrinkle. Suppose that when you put down the coin, it rolled off of the table and fell down a drain in the corner of the room and was washed away forever. Now there is no possibility of making more tosses. Has anything changed that now makes it impossible to analyze the tosses statistically?

Of course not.

I don't think you guys have much to worry about. This debate is between two professional entertainers. I think both have agreed to do it because they are both attracted to the same idol that drives all entertainers . . . attention.

Unfortunately I predict that these two will be portrayed by the main stream media as the real representatives of science and Christianity. The two of them however, like most of the others who fill the "reality TV" airwaves, are nothing of the sort . . . whether they realize it or not they have morphed into caricatures of what they perceive their audiences demand.

I personally feel that Ken Ham does a disservice to those pursuing a real understanding of what the Bible actually says about creation. I think his unwavering fixation on 24 hour days of creation causes him to disregard both logic and Biblical testimony. His science (which in many cases is valuable) is selectively used for the purpose of defending his position. In this regard he falls into the same trap as many of those on evolution side of the debate. Bill Nye has certainly revealed himself to be equally guilty. This will be nothing more than an entertaining WWF match . . . not a productive debate that leads to a better understanding of reality.

Real scientific discovery pursues truth wherever it leads . . . even if it isn't popular.

I would much rather see a debate between Stephen Meyer and Richard Dawkins as representatives of the opposing sides than these two. I doubt we will however, because I think the main stream media/government/scientific establishment won't allow it. They appear to be doing all they can to keep Meyer's voice out of the limelight. Because they recognize that the people are more easily controlled if they are entertained rather than informed they'd prefer that Ken Ham be the representative of a Christian pursuing answers to life's origins than Dr. Meyer.

I see that Ham is already turning this into a World Wrestling Federation match.

These idiots are so low brow.

fittest meme said: I would much rather see a debate between Stephen Meyer and Richard Dawkins as representatives of the opposing sides than these two.

I love that Ham says, "Not only that, but atheists in many ways have managed to censor information concerning creation from the public" on a blog that doesn't allow comments.

Commenter Sastra, over at Pharyngula, thinks it's an automatic win for Nye. How can this be? Because Ham has set this not-a-debate up in such a way that Ham can't gain any 'converts' to his 'side', but Nye can.

It's going to occur in the Creation not-a-Museum, and the audience is going to be packed chock-full of YEC sympathizers, most of whom have never been exposed to any real science, just Creationist caricatures thereof. So there's no way for anyone in the audience to get more committed to YEC—they're already there, and as the saying goes, "you can't fall off the floor". But all of the audience will, for at least the duration of this debate, be exposed to real science… and what has been seen cannot be unseen, nor what has been heard be unheard.

Now, this not-a-debate is apparently going to happen in a 700-seat auditorium; assuming Ham packs the auditorium with YEC zealots (not an unreasonable assumption, methinks), that's 700 Creationists who will be exposed to real science. 700 Creationists who, whatever they may say about YEC in the 'exit poll' at the end of the not-a-debate, will have a little worm of scientific doubt gnawing away at their YEC certainty. Most of these Creationists will of course ignore that little worm of doubt. Most… but not all. And the ones who do listen to that worm of doubt? Well, they're probably not going to stay YEC.

Sastra doesn't address the near-certainty that Ham will produce a DVD of the not-a-debate which has been hack-edited to make Nye look stoopid, so I'm not sure I agree with her that it's an auto-win for Nye. But the living, in-the-flesh audience of that not-a-debate? As far as those guys are concerned, Nye can't lose.

IanR said: I love that Ham says, "Not only that, but atheists in many ways have managed to censor information concerning creation from the public" on a blog that doesn't allow comments.

eric said:

IanR said: From AiG website (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science): "The examples of science used in the textbooks show only operational (observational) science. This type of science, which makes observations and repeated experiments in the present, allows us to produce technology that benefits mankind. Evolution does not fit within the definition of operational science and should be classified as historical (origins) science."

Its always bothered me that such statements basically ignore the finite speed of light. Everything we observe is in the past; nothing we observe is technically in the present moment. In terms of being "historical," there is very little difference between digging up a fossil and collecting starlight.

eric said:

fittest meme said: I would much rather see a debate between Stephen Meyer and Richard Dawkins as representatives of the opposing sides than these two.

I would much rather see IDers such as Stephen Meyer perform reproducible, novel research and then publish the results. A debate isn't doing science, and they need to actually do science if they want to show that their ideas have merit. Do you agree or disagree, meme?

Yes, it’s sad to read the ignorant, mocking, and attacking comments that were posted to this item. But it does illustrate the hatred many of these secularists have for Christians.

So here's a question for Matt Young.

Roughly half of America still doubts or disbelieves evolution, especially regarding human origins. Yet you guys have dominated the education scene ever since the Scopes Trial. You've won every court decision, you've won out against creationism and also intelligent design. You guys dominate the secular universities and public schools (and Catholic schools) alike. Decades and decades of evolutionist victory.

The media outlets invariably help preach your gospel of evolution, they help you attack the non-Darwinists any chance they get, and this situation has taken place for decades as well.

So, with everything already going your way anyway, what would be your best rational explanation for why so many Americans still doubt and disbelieve evolution after all this time?

FL

So here’s a question for Matt Young.

Roughly half of America still doubts or disbelieves evolution, especially regarding human origins. Yet you guys have dominated the education scene ever since the Scopes Trial. You’ve won every court decision, you’ve won out against creationism and also intelligent design. You guys dominate the secular universities and public schools (and Catholic schools) alike. Decades and decades of evolutionist victory.

The media outlets invariably help preach your gospel of evolution, they help you attack the non-Darwinists any chance they get, and this situation has taken place for decades as well.

So, with everything already going your way anyway, what would be your best rational explanation for why so many Americans still doubt and disbelieve evolution after all this time?

"Resistance is futile" - The Borg Collective

I am Homer of Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimil --
oooh, jelly doughnuts!

-- Paul O'Neill

Ray Martinez said: Because we SEE design in nature, that's why.

Ray Martinez said: Sound logic says one cannot be a real Creationist while accepting the main claims of your alleged opponent.

Matt Young said:

[FL]: The media outlets invariably help preach your gospel of evolution, they help you attack the non-Darwinists any chance they get, and this situation has taken place for decades as well.

That is certainly news to me. Rather than ferret out the truth, the media seem to prefer a fight and give to the claims of a small minority a weight equal to that of the vast majority of scientists; think, for example, of climate change, which almost no reputable scientists doubt, yet the media make it appear as if there is controversy. Same with evolution, I think.

Ray, this is a sincere question. Could you please give me one example of something that is definitely NOT designed? And, if you would, explain briefly how you can tell that it is not designed. How is it fundamentally different from something that IS designed?

Ray, this is a sincere question. Could you please give me one exampleof something that is definitely NOT designed? And, if you would, explain briefly how you can tell that it is not designed. How is it fundamentally different from something that IS designed?

Matt Young said:

Ray, this is a sincere question. Could you please give me one exampleof something that is definitely NOT designed? And, if you would, explain briefly how you can tell that it is not designed. How is it fundamentally different from something that IS designed?

OK, as a favor to Mr. Bob, I will allow a single answer from Mr. Martinez. Make it good! I will not tolerate the pointless bickering between Mr. Martinez and Mr. phhht.

So here’s a question for any creationist.

Roughly half of America still doubts or disbelieves creationism, especially regarding human origins. Yet you guys have dominated the church scene ever since Jesus was around. You’ve lost every court decision, you haven't even been able to provide any evidence at all for creationism or intelligent design. You guys dominate the religious universities and bible schools (and even most public school classrooms). Decades and decades of creationist lies and distortions, many of them exposed by scientists or even in courts of law.

The media outlets invariably help preach your gospel, they help you attack the science any chance they get, and this situation has taken place for decades as well.

So, with everything already going your way anyway, what would be your best rational explanation for why so many Americans still doubt and disbelieve creationism after all this time?

http://ken-ham-v-bill-nye.wikispaces.com/Ken+Ham+Responds+to+Bill+Nye+the+Humanist+Guy+-+Transcript+comments

"Creationists are not afraid to teach their children about evolution."

RIght Ken. That's why at least one sermon every month is devoted to science. That's why you always get taught Hardy Weinberg in Sunday school. That's why every child raised in your church knows how allele frequencies will change under selection. That's why every prayer service includes some fossil intermediates. Right Ken. Good one.

Or do you object to my calling Mr Ray Martinez a halfwit?

may sink unless investors purchase about $29 million in unrated municipal bonds by Feb. 6. ... Even though $26.5 million of securities have been sold, the project needs to sell at least $55 million in total to avoid triggering a redemption of all the bonds, Ken Ham, the nonprofit’s president, said in an e-mail to supporters yesterday. Without the proceeds, construction funding will fall short, he said.

Industrial-development bonds are considered the riskiest municipal debt because they account for the largest proportion of defaults in the $3.7 trillion municipal market. Williamstown issued the bonds without a rating, making the prospect of repayment even less clear.

Matt Young said:

Or do you object to my calling Mr Ray Martinez a halfwit?

I object to the constant stream of taunting and invective

DS said: Yet you guys have dominated the church scene

DS said: "Creationists are not afraid to teach their children about evolution." RIght Ken. That's why at least one sermon every month is devoted to science. That's why you always get taught Hardy Weinberg in Sunday school. That's why every child raised in your church knows how allele frequencies will change under selection. That's why every prayer service includes some fossil intermediates. Right Ken. Good one.

Good point. They teach ABOUT evolution in the same sense that Reefer Madness taught ABOUT marijuana.

Just Bob said: Ray, this is a sincere question. Could you please give me one example of something that is definitely NOT designed? And, if you would, explain briefly how you can tell that it is not designed. How is it fundamentally different from something that IS designed?

Barry Desborough said: http://ken-ham-v-bill-nye.wikispaces.com/Ken+Ham+Responds+to+Bill+Nye+the+Humanist+Guy+-+Transcript+comments

Bill Nye himself has remained strangely and utterly silent on this whole "debate" issue (at least publicly - I'm curious to hear if he got back to patrickmay or Diogenes) His Twitter feed doesn't mention thing, all the news articles are told mostly from Ol' Hambo's point of view, and apparently Nye's assistant isn't even returning emails.

Tristan Miller said: Bill Nye himself has remained strangely and utterly silent on this whole "debate" issue (at least publicly - I'm curious to hear if he got back to patrickmay or Diogenes) His Twitter feed doesn't mention thing, all the news articles are told mostly from Ol' Hambo's point of view, and apparently Nye's assistant isn't even returning emails.

Just Bob said: Ray, this is a sincere question. Could you please give me one example of something that is definitely NOT designed?

And, if you would, explain briefly how you can tell that it is not designed. How is it fundamentally different from something that IS designed?

Yawn. I think I'll get a t-shirt printed in big letters: Watches don't breed.

If this debate comes off as "reasonable' by any definition, many creationists will ask why we can't debate the "issue" in the same way in public school science classrooms.

Watches don’t breed.

Matt Young said:

Watches don’t breed.

A very important point.

Peter Hoffmann makes a hash of Paley's watchmaker argument; see the book review by Mike Elzinga or, better yet, read the book, Life's Ratchet. Paley's argument in its time, incidentally, was a good one, but it was culturally biased and, now that we understand evolution clearly, it is as obsolete as Ptolemy's picture of the universe. I do not mean to appear condescending, but it is sad that someone can today take it quite so seriously.

Ray Martinez said:

Matt Young said:

Watches don’t breed.

A very important point.

You've misunderstood: watches represent species.

Peter Hoffmann makes a hash of Paley's watchmaker argument; see the book review by Mike Elzinga or, better yet, read the book, Life's Ratchet. Paley's argument in its time, incidentally, was a good one, but it was culturally biased and, now that we understand evolution clearly, it is as obsolete as Ptolemy's picture of the universe. I do not mean to appear condescending, but it is sad that someone can today take it quite so seriously.

Richard Dawkins (1986:4; boldfacing added): "The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His Natural Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, published in 1802, is the best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design', always the most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God. It is a book that I greatly admire, for in his own time its author succeeded in doing what I am struggling to do now. He had a point to make, he passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram it home clearly. He had a proper reverence for the complexity of the living world, and he saw that it demands a very special kind of explanation. The only thing he got wrong - admittedly quite a big thing! - was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer to the riddle, but he articulated it more clearly and convincingly than anybody had before."

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Ray, this is a sincere question. Could you please give me one example of something that is definitely NOT designed?

Paley answered this issue and question way back in 1802. His opening remarks, as famous as words come, contrasted a stone with a watch. The former not designed, unlike the latter....So our side, long ago, has produced an example of an undesigned natural object. The ball is in your court....

And, if you would, explain briefly how you can tell that it is not designed. How is it fundamentally different from something that IS designed?

Again, a vast majority of Darwinian scholars agree that Paley's contrasting conception is valid. The ball is in your court.... RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

fnxtr said: Yawn. I think I'll get a t-shirt printed in big letters: Watches don't breed.

fnxtr said: Yawn. I think I'll get a t-shirt printed in big letters: Watches don't breed.

So, with everything already going your way anyway, what would be your best rational explanation for why so many Americans still doubt and disbelieve evolution after all this time?

Evolution is hard to understand, and it is not taught properly in many schools. In addition, many people learn in certain churches that evolution is a construct of the devil. Finally, I imagine it must be threatening to people to think that evolution necessarily rejects God or an afterlife. The opposition to evolution seems to me to be analogous to the opposition to the heliocentric theory in the time of Galileo: it appears to be antireligious and to deny certain preconceived notions. Evolution, however, may be a harder nut to crack, because evolution probably appears more threatening than merely learning that the earth is not the center of the universe, and it is harder to understand. The theory of evolution is one of the most well supported theories in all of science. Almost no trained scientists and particularly no biologists have any doubts about the theory of evolution. Can you please tell us briefly and without reference to a preconceived religious belief why you reject the theory of evolution?

Dawkins took it seriously as late as 1986.

The only thing he got wrong - admittedly quite a big thing! - was the explanation itself,

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/01/03/evolutionists-running-scared/

He's convinced that this is you "running scared" *snort*

You know what I would like to see? Christian Scientists educating the world - together. Not this junk from Ham's personal beliefs which don't even agree with most Christians (just the one's he had already brainwashed!).

Ray Martinez said:

fnxtr said: Yawn. I think I'll get a t-shirt printed in big letters: Watches don't breed.

Dawkins disagrees: Richard Dawkins (1986:4; boldfacing added): “The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His Natural Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, published in 1802, is the best-known exposition of the ‘Argument from Design’, always the most influential of the arguments for the existence of a God. It is a book that I greatly admire, for in his own time its author succeeded in doing what I am struggling to do now. He had a point to make, he passionately believed in it, and he spared no effort to ram it home clearly. He had a proper reverence for the complexity of the living world, and he saw that it demands a very special kind of explanation. The only thing he got wrong - admittedly quite a big thing! - was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer to the riddle, but he articulated it more clearly and convincingly than anybody had before.”

harold said:

fnxtr said: Yawn. I think I'll get a t-shirt printed in big letters: Watches don't breed.

Also, the Christianity teaches that the Christian God created the entire universe, but and ID/creationist says that "rocks" or "stones" "aren't designed"; how is this not contradictory?. What is the definition of a rock or a stone? Where did they come from, according to ID/creationist belief, if the Christian God didn't directly or indirectly create them? What about rocks that ARE designed, for example, when large mineral deposits are broken up into smaller rocks for use in road building, a very common activity both now and historically? Even if we grant that rocks aren't "designed", what is the a method for determining whether something that isn't a rock is designed or not, that a skeptical person can employ, described in enough detail that it can be employed? If such a method is produced, why is it valid? How was it tested?

I spoke too soon. CNN has this interview with Bill Nye on the upcoming debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rhdl0rdht8&app=desktop

Tristan Miller said: I spoke too soon. CNN has this interview with Bill Nye on the upcoming debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rhdl0rdht8&app=desktop

Just Bob said: [snip....] OK, we're halfway there. We have your example. But you didn't touch the crucial part of the question: explain briefly how you can tell that it is not designed. How is it fundamentally different from something that IS designed?

Let's skip past all the types of stones that ARE, partially or in whole, designed by humans (and there are many), and go directly to what Paley, and presumably you, had in mind: a "natural" stone. Now the Designer that you're stumping for is divine, yes? Not to put too fine a point on it, it's the Christian god, variously known as 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh', yes? And this deity was capable of creating the whole Earth, nay, the whole UNIVERSE, and all living things, yes? And he has omnipotent creative powers, and can work in ways undetectable, even in principle, by mere humans.

Now consider that stone, about which you declined to explain HOW you could determine that it was NOT designed, but that you are apparently certain was NOT, in fact, designed. If we stipulate a god that is omnipotent and creative (as above), then how could you possibly tell that your 'natural' stone was NOT designed by him, molecule by molecule and crystal by crystal, to be EXACTLY as it is? Are you maintaining that God couldn't fool you? That he could not design and create a natural-appearing stone whose subtle design would be beyond your merely human power to discern? Surely you're not claiming the ability to detect that which God doesn't want you to. Or is there some other quality of designed objects, some aura perhaps, by which you can infallibly distinguish design from non-design? My point is that with a supernatural, omnipotent Designer, it must be impossible, even in principle, to be certain which things are designed and which aren't. I await your explanation of how you KNOW your stone wasn't designed. The ball, as you say, is...

Matt Young said:

Dawkins took it seriously as late as 1986.

Now we are quibbling definitions, and that is where I drop out. Dawkins took the argument seriously, but he did not accept it, because it was wholly obsolete. He said,

The only thing he got wrong - admittedly quite a big thing! - was the explanation itself,

which hardly makes me think he accepted Paley's argument. Hoffmann, I think, dealt it a death blow in 2012. Anyone who still thinks that the watchmaker argument is valid needs to read and internalize that chapter.

Tristan Miller said: I spoke too soon. CNN has this interview with Bill Nye on the upcoming debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rhdl0rdht8&app=desktop

Matt Young said: ...Paley's argument. Hoffmann, I think, dealt it a death blow in 2012. Anyone who still thinks that the watchmaker argument is valid needs to read and internalize that chapter.

Ray Martinez said:

Matt Young said: ...Paley's argument. Hoffmann, I think, dealt it a death blow in 2012. Anyone who still thinks that the watchmaker argument is valid needs to read and internalize that chapter.

According to evolutionary scholars, Darwin dealt Paley the death blow.

Ray Martinez said: As I mentioned in my initial reply... [big snip] I think turnabout is fair play: Identify any designed natural object? Of course you cannot. Therefore your question posed to me is loaded, ad hoc, illegitimate.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Matt Young said: ...Paley's argument. Hoffmann, I think, dealt it a death blow in 2012. Anyone who still thinks that the watchmaker argument is valid needs to read and internalize that chapter.

According to evolutionary scholars, Darwin dealt Paley the death blow.

The ID/creationists didn’t get the word. They think evolution and the molecules of life violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said:

Matt Young said: ...Paley's argument. Hoffmann, I think, dealt it a death blow in 2012. Anyone who still thinks that the watchmaker argument is valid needs to read and internalize that chapter.

According to evolutionary scholars, Darwin dealt Paley the death blow.

The ID/creationists didn’t get the word. They think evolution and the molecules of life violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Then why do the Hamites accept conceptual existence of natural selection, evolution, common ancestry?

Arg I can’t post the link from my phone.

TomS said: ...the concept of "intelligent design" has not been investigated thoroughly.

Can you please tell us briefly and without reference to a preconceived religious belief why you reject the theory of evolution?

If this debate comes off as “reasonable’ by any definition, many creationists will ask why we can’t debate the “issue” in the same way in public school science classrooms.

No counter examples that disprove evolution exist. Nothing at all points to intelligent design. That is all.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: As I mentioned in my initial reply... [big snip] I think turnabout is fair play: Identify any designed natural object? Of course you cannot. Therefore your question posed to me is loaded, ad hoc, illegitimate.

[return big snip....] Paley, and you, both blasphemously limit the abilities and intentions of God. And you have the absolute hubris to, apparently, claim that YOU can detect that which God does not want detected.

A designed natural object? Umm... a honeycomb.

FL said: For sooner or later, Ham's going to do to Nye what Dembski did to Shermer: come up with a potent, intuitive, brief, clear and memorable biological counterexample or counterexamples, something interesting that points to intelligent design or engineering. FL

Invisible honey bees. Wow.

No counter examples that disprove evolution exist. Nothing at all points to intelligent design. That is all.

Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.

Ray Martinez said: Where did you obtain these ideas about God? The Bible? Philosophers? Miley Cyrus? Where did you obtain the idea that God doesn't want X detected or known? Paley's title says the exact opposite: "Natural Theology; or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Colllected from the Appearances of Nature" (1802). Before Darwin became an Evolutionist he said of Paley 1802 that he had been "charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation."

JB: A designed natural object? Umm... a honeycomb.

Ray: Are you actually suggesting evidence of invisible Designer (God) exists in nature?

Biological counterexamples exist, counterexamples that point to intelligent design for their origin, INSTEAD OF naturalistic evolution.

Let's make it Real Simple.

Here are three stones. They all happen to be tiny rough diamonds, of obviously poor quality and very similar appearance.

One was found in a kimberlite pipe in South Africa and formed by plutonic forces in the deep mantle. It's 'natural'.

One was made from uncrystallized carbon in a laboratory--a manmade diamond.

One was designed and created by God, atom by atom, to have precisely the shape, color, weight, flaws, and everything, exactly as he wanted. And he wanted it to look EXACTLY like a 'natural' stone -- or maybe like a manmade one. And he succeeded.

Now, Ray, here are two 'designed' stones and one 'natural'. Explain how to tell the 'designed' from the 'undesigned'. How would your hero Paley do it?

Or would Paley recognize that all 3 are stones, and thus 'natural' and undesigned? And thus be wrong.

In case you didn't know: Nobody, nobody at all can 'win' an argument with Ray. Over a decade at t.o. he's demonstrated an inbred ability of abusing logic to suit his own goal. When the going gets to rough he just makes a disappearance from the relevant thread.

A thread dedicated to Ray was recently started at AtBC and I wish Ray would appear there to defend his bizarre claims. I think the only thing that might make Ray rethink his position and realize that he will not get anywhere near where he want to go by scraping the bottom of the barrel of 19th century writings, viewing them thru the pinhole of his own peculiar, skewed logic and reasoning to prove that 160 years of science has not produced anything that is not invalidated by the argument that appearance of design equals evidence of design.

I will be posting a few examples to the Ray Martinez thread at AtBC.

That’s why you always get taught Hardy Weinberg in Sunday school.

FL said:

That’s why you always get taught Hardy Weinberg in Sunday school.

Actually, since it is routinely taught in biology/evolution classes, the Hardy-Weinberg Equation really SHOULD be taught or brought up somewhere in Sunday School, (in age-appropriate youth or adult classes.) I know it's not happening, but it *should* happen. And here's some good information that the Sunday School teacher would want to offer upfront to his or her students, in order to help introduce the topic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v8/n1/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium-model http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/caught_in_candi058301.html (scroll down) FL

FL said:

No counter examples that disprove evolution exist. Nothing at all points to intelligent design. That is all.

Heh. In THIS forum, your statement is the Automatic Panda Default Position. Your statement is accepted without question, period...within the specific confines of Pandaville. But I've had a little taste (actually, a couple of times) of how these debate things work outside of Pandaville. And unfortunately for you, Mr. Nye is NOT traveling to Pandaville, is he? **** Oh no no, Mr. TV-Science-Guy is traveling to Mordor itself, the hated AIG Creation Museum, the monstrous YEC Central. This time, we party on OUR turf. Makes the game interesting! 900 people may well fill up the Museum debate hall, is that right? That's a lotta folks. And a good number of them, (maybe the majority?) will NOT be Pandas. Folks from all camps and all sides will be interested. Folks who are still making up their minds about origins -- the kind of people your side and my side seeks to influence -- will be interested. Rational people, people of faith, scientists, scholars, and students who may not buy into the Automatic Panda Default Position but instead at least listen what all sides are saying, yes? **** Now I don't know if Ken Ham is a good debater or not, I've never heard him speak in actual combat. Excellent preacher, but preachers don't always make the best debaters. So I can't say if he'll win or lose. Adds to the suspense, I suppose. But if Ham is roughly as good as Dembski, then Bill Nye better hop up his schtick two or three notches. Otherwise, the evolution queen Eugenie Scott will get the last word:

Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.

FL

FL said:

No counter examples that disprove evolution exist. Nothing at all points to intelligent design. That is all.

Heh. In THIS forum, your statement is the Automatic Panda Default Position. Your statement is accepted without question, period...within the specific confines of Pandaville. FL

Just Bob said: Let's make it Real Simple. Here are three stones. They all happen to be tiny rough diamonds, of obviously poor quality and very similar appearance. One was found in a kimberlite pipe in South Africa and formed by plutonic forces in the deep mantle. It's 'natural'. One was made from uncrystallized carbon in a laboratory--a manmade diamond. One was designed and created by God, atom by atom, to have precisely the shape, color, weight, flaws, and everything, exactly as he wanted. And he wanted it to look EXACTLY like a 'natural' stone -- or maybe like a manmade one. And he succeeded. Now, Ray, here are two 'designed' stones and one 'natural'. Explain how to tell the 'designed' from the 'undesigned'. How would your hero Paley do it?

Also, Christianity teaches that the Christian God created the entire universe, but and ID/creationist says that “rocks” or “stones” “aren’t designed”; how is this not contradictory? What is the definition of a rock or a stone? Where did they come from, according to ID/creationist belief, if the Christian God didn’t directly or indirectly create them? What about rocks that ARE designed, for example, when large mineral deposits are broken up into smaller rocks for use in road building, a very common activity both now and historically? Even if we grant that rocks aren’t “designed”, what is the a method for determining whether something that isn’t a rock is designed or not, that a skeptical person can employ, described in enough detail that it can be employed? If such a method is produced, why is it valid? How was it tested?

My advice to Bill and other goodies. http://ken-ham-v-bill-nye.wikispaces.com/My+advice+to+Bill

Dave Luckett said: Ray Martinez demonstrates confusion and heresy. The Christian believes that God created all things, and that all things exist because of God's will. Since all things exist because of the Divine Will, the stone also exists because of Divine Will. Its nature, its position, its properties, its attributes, all are as Almighty God has chosen. And because God knows all things, He knows every aspect of every operation of His own infinite mind. He is conscious of all things, including the process by which he created that stone, and every stone, and all things. The stone is therefore the product of a conscious and intelligent process that has produced it as it is and consciously wills it to be what it is. It has been designed. It is therefore NOT an example of a thing that is not designed, as Ray Martinez avers. All things whatsoever are thus designed. By rejecting God's authorship and design of the stone, Martinez rejects God's authorship of all things. That makes him a heretic. That said, it is plain that "design" is not the difference between the stone and the watch. That difference consists of the degree of the manifest nature of their purpose, that is, what they were designed to do. We do not know for what purpose God designed the stone. Perhaps it was to crush the skulls of heretics and/or adulterers - that much is enjoined on believers by Holy Writ. Perhaps it was to use as a paperweight. Perhaps it was, by its structure, to induce the reflection that all things crumble into dust, and are reformed. Perhaps it was to teach something about those processes. Nobody knows. Nobody can know. On the other hand, the purposes of the watch are clearly manifest. It is designed specifically to move its hands at as close to an absolutely constant rate as possible, thus to measure time. We can confirm this by interrogating the designer, which we cannot do with the designer of the stone. The watch is different in this way - but only in this way - from the stone - that is, that its purposes are inferrable and confirmable. Further, this confirmation can specify the precise processes that produced the watch. We can actually observe the watchmaker at work. We can ask him about those processes, and confirm them in operation. Living things are, like all other things, the product of design, as described. However, we cannot interrogate their designer. But we can enquire into the processes by which their designer worked. When this is done, we find that hereditably imperfect self-replication, plus natural selection among the descendent variants, are such processes. They, like erosion or agglomeration in the case of the stone, are natural processes that the designer used to create according to His will. And that is the theory of evolution. To the Christian, it is a process used by Almighty God to create the diversity of living things, according to His will. Only the heretic presumes to limit God as to the means by which He created all things. Only the heretic presumes to exempt anything in the Universe from the workings of the Creator God.

I would add to this the point that the process of evolution "designs", not individuals, but population, species, and other collectives of living things. The natural process that results in individuals is reproduction (and related processes such as genetics, development, and so on).

xubist said: Commenter Sastra, over at Pharyngula, thinks it's an automatic win for Nye. How can this be? Because Ham has set this not-a-debate up in such a way that Ham can't gain any 'converts' to his 'side', but Nye can. It's going to occur in the Creation not-a-Museum, and the audience is going to be packed chock-full of YEC sympathizers, most of whom have never been exposed to any real science, just Creationist caricatures thereof. So there's no way for anyone in the audience to get more committed to YEC—they're already there, and as the saying goes, "you can't fall off the floor". But all of the audience will, for at least the duration of this debate, be exposed to real science… and what has been seen cannot be unseen, nor what has been heard be unheard. Now, this not-a-debate is apparently going to happen in a 700-seat auditorium; assuming Ham packs the auditorium with YEC zealots (not an unreasonable assumption, methinks), that's 700 Creationists who will be exposed to real science. 700 Creationists who, whatever they may say about YEC in the 'exit poll' at the end of the not-a-debate, will have a little worm of scientific doubt gnawing away at their YEC certainty. Most of these Creationists will of course ignore that little worm of doubt. Most… but not all. And the ones who do listen to that worm of doubt? Well, they're probably not going to stay YEC. Sastra doesn't address the near-certainty that Ham will produce a DVD of the not-a-debate which has been hack-edited to make Nye look stoopid, so I'm not sure I agree with her that it's an auto-win for Nye. But the living, in-the-flesh audience of that not-a-debate? As far as those guys are concerned, Nye can't lose.

fnxtr said: Yawn. I think I'll get a t-shirt printed in big letters: Watches don't breed.

On the other hand, will Ken Ham bring Christianity into disrepute ?

bigdakine said:

fnxtr said: Yawn. I think I'll get a t-shirt printed in big letters: Watches don't breed.

And they need a designer to wind them.

Ian Derthal said: On the other hand, will Ken Ham bring Christianity into disrepute ?

Mike Elzinga said:

Ian Derthal said: On the other hand, will Ken Ham bring Christianity into disrepute ?

He has already done that. Just look at the AiG website and Ham's diatribes.

I am of two minds regarding the upcoming Nye - Ham debate. I do endorse these observations made by someone else elsewhere online regarding why one shouldn't debate creationists:

https://medium.com/scientific-skepticism/1762e853f580

Indeed, I made virtually the same arguments years ago when I heard that the American Museum of Natural History was going to hold an Intelligent Design debate and I wrote to complain about it to Richard Milner and a colleague of his over in the museum's Education department, since they were organizing it. However, the debate was far more successful than I thought it might be, with Genie Scott moderating and Ken Miller and Robert Pennock successfully going after Michael Behe and William Dembski. Still, having it at the museum may not have been the best venue given the museum's historical and ongoing role as a major center for research in evolutionary biology.

I know Nye is getting ample coaching on creationist techniques, but I would also recommend that he look at Ham's other debates to get a good sense as to what to expect.

AiG ”teaches” how to “think critically.”

Bottom line: Look to a bible-quoting authority figure at AiG; all else is folly.

And yet Ham wants to debate “science.”

Looks like this discussion is winding up, and we have let 2 of our resident trolls have their say. In future postings, I will continue my practice of sending their comments straight to the BW, and I request that no one respond to them here. I recommend to Mr. Martinez that he supplement his study of Natural Theology with the Almagest for astronomy and De Rerum Natura for atomic theory.

The question is, will they pass collection plates shaped like arks at the debate?

Mike Elzinga said: AiG ”teaches” how to “think critically.” Bottom line: Look to a bible-quoting authority figure at AiG; all else is folly. And yet Ham wants to debate “science.”

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga said: AiG ”teaches” how to “think critically.” Bottom line: Look to a bible-quoting authority figure at AiG; all else is folly. And yet Ham wants to debate “science.”

I looked at that link and nearly barfed. What's point one of this "critical thinking" that Ken Ham is going on about? Why, you ask what authority the source has! Excuse me...

Once the authority question is answered, you need to try to discern the starting point of the person making the claim: Does this person base their thinking on human philosophy or God’s Word? In other words, do they have a biblical, Christian worldview or a humanistic worldview?

I think the last time "humanistic" was used as perjorative adjective would have been sometime in the seventeenth century. Actually, "humanist", the terminal "-ic" being redundant.

Mind you, that word doesn't mean what Ham thinks it means.

Matt Young said: Looks like this discussion is winding up, and we have let 2 of our resident trolls have their say. In future postings, I will continue my practice of sending their comments straight to the BW, and I request that no one respond to them here. ...

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga said: AiG ”teaches” how to “think critically.” Bottom line: Look to a bible-quoting authority figure at AiG; all else is folly. And yet Ham wants to debate “science.”

I looked at that link and nearly barfed. What's point one of this "critical thinking" that Ken Ham is going on about? Why, you ask what authority the source has! Excuse me...

Over at his Facebook page, Donald Prothero has announced that he is coaching Bill Nye. Given Don's prior experience in debating Intelligent Design cretinists like Stephen Meyer, and of course, Bill Nye's extensive experience as a science popularizer in his own right, I think there should be some reason for optimism with regards to Nye's performance against Ham in next month's debate.

John said: Over at his Facebook page, Donald Prothero has announced that he is coaching Bill Nye. Given Don's prior experience in debating Intelligent Design cretinists like Stephen Meyer, and of course, Bill Nye's extensive experience as a science popularizer in his own right, I think there should be some reason for optimism with regards to Nye's performance against Ham in next month's debate.

I think I know how the debate will go. Something like this:

Ken: The earth is six thousand years old.

Bill: No it isn't.

Ken: Yes it is.

Bill: How do you know?

Ken: The bible says so.

Bill: No it doesn't.

Ken: Yes it does.

Bill: No it doesn't. Anyway, here are six independent lines of evidence that prove that the earth must be at least millions of years old.

Ken: I don't care.

Bill: You have to care.

Ken: No i don't. I don't recognize your authority.

Bill: It's not my opinion, it's the consensus of all scientists everywhere.

Ken: Were they there?

Bill: No, were you?

Ken: No, but Jesus was and that's good enough for me.

Bill: No he wasn't ...

Moderator: That's all we have time for folks. Ken wins! As the winner, do you have any last words Ken?

Ken: Yea, we must teach critical thinking or young people will be persuaded by the facts told to them by humanists.

All tickets sold "within minutes." They are considering live streaming. Stay tuned.

"For its part, Answers in Genesis welcomes this opportunity to debate a serious evolutionist, as opposed to debating angry, blasphemous atheists who sometimes try to bait AiG into a debate and have little intent to discuss science but rather to mock and ridicule Christianity."

Does anyone know if BIll has ever discussed his religious beliefs? Apparently these guys seem to think that he is either not an atheist or that he is going to give religion a free pass when it comes to evidence. Has Bill agreed not to discuss religion? Has he agreed to anything? If he tries to say that the bible isn't science, are they gong to cut him off or claim that he is mocking and ridiculing them? In any event, they can't say that they were "baited" if they are the ones who gave the invitation.

It's possible that Ken Ham could use a major portion of the debate to claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. In other words, to set up and advocate a false choice between biological science and the Bible. I have heard Ken Ham quote a prominent atheist to that effect, then follow it up with the comment, "This guy oughta preach in our churches!" That will play well to the AiG audience. Bill Nye had better be prepared for that likelihood.

Carl Drews said: It's possible that Ken Ham could use a major portion of the debate to claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. In other words, to set up and advocate a false choice between biological science and the Bible. I have heard Ken Ham quote a prominent atheist to that effect, then follow it up with the comment, "This guy oughta preach in our churches!" That will play well to the AiG audience. Bill Nye had better be prepared for that likelihood.

For good measure it could also be good to contact Ken Miller and have him reach out to Nye, as Ken may be between semesters now at Brown Univ. As many of us know, Miller could give excellent advice from direct experience, as Miller bested both Henry Morris and Duane Gish in debates during the 1980s.

It was telling that Bill Dembski suddenly withdrew from a planned debate with Miller at Case Western Reserve University in Jan 2006. Besides Dembski demonstrating a past history of being not-so-great in a detate-type format, ID having had just lost big in the Kitzmiller court case was probably also a factor in Dembski running away. But it was no problem for Miller, as he simply gave a lecture at Case Western on how the Kitzmiller plaintiffs won bigtime; video of this 2006 Case Western talk by Miller is easy to Google up (Miller was the lead expert witness for the Dover plaintiffs).

Tenncrain said: For good measure it could also be good to contact Ken Miller and have him reach out to Nye, as Ken may be between semesters now at Brown Univ. As many of us know, Miller could give excellent advice from direct experience, as Miller bested both Henry Morris and Duane Gish in debates during the 1980s. It was telling that Bill Dembski suddenly withdrew from a planned debate with Miller at Case Western Reserve University in Jan 2006. Besides Dembski demonstrating a past history of being not-so-great in a detate-type format, ID having had just lost big in the Kitzmiller court case was probably also a factor in Dembski running away. But it was no problem for Miller, as he simply gave a lecture at Case Western on how the Kitzmiller plaintiffs won bigtime; video of this 2006 Case Western talk by Miller is easy to Google up (Miller was the lead expert witness for the Dover plaintiffs).

Matt Young said: Looks like this discussion is winding up, and we have let 2 of our resident [anti-evolutionists] have their say. In future postings, I will continue my practice of sending their comments straight to the BW, and I request that no one respond to them here. I recommend to Mr. Martinez that he supplement his study of Natural Theology with the Almagest for astronomy and De Rerum Natura for atomic theory.

Ray Martinez said:

Matt Young said: Looks like this discussion is winding up, and we have let 2 of our resident [anti-evolutionists] have their say. In future postings, I will continue my practice of sending their comments straight to the BW, and I request that no one respond to them here. I recommend to Mr. Martinez that he supplement his study of Natural Theology with the Almagest for astronomy and De Rerum Natura for atomic theory.

Thanks, Matt. My final comment: We reject the theory of evolution because we see/observe design in nature. Design logically implies the work of invisible Designer (Genesis Creator)---not unintelligence (natural selection).

Ray Martinez said: We reject the theory of evolution because we see/observe design in nature. Design logically implies the work of invisible Designer (Genesis Creator)---not unintelligence (natural selection).

Ray Martinez said: We reject the theory of evolution ...

"There's nothing to debate" seems like an awful cop-out to me. If the "fact" of evolution is so blindingly, dazzling, stunningly obvious, then not only Bill Nye, but also Paris Hilton should be able to mop the floor with Ken Ham in a debate.

On the other hand... perhaps there's something to this debate after all.. hmm?
Let's watch it and find out. Tuesday, Feb 4th 7pm.

DS said: I think I know how the debate will go. Something like this: Ken: The earth is six thousand years old. Bill: No it isn't. Ken: Yes it is. Bill: How do you know? Ken: The bible says so. Bill: No it doesn't. Ken: Yes it does. Bill: No it doesn't. Anyway, here are six independent lines of evidence that prove that the earth must be at least millions of years old. Ken: I don't care. Bill: You have to care. Ken: No i don't. I don't recognize your authority. Bill: It's not my opinion, it's the consensus of all scientists everywhere. Ken: Were they there? Bill: No, were you? Ken: No, but Jesus was and that's good enough for me. Bill: No he wasn't ... Moderator: That's all we have time for folks. Ken wins! As the winner, do you have any last words Ken? Ken: Yea, we must teach critical thinking or young people will be persuaded by the facts told to them by humanists.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/SLoKpW1xsdSo169D9hLZQuKWYw2gPZaONw--#ba94a said: "There's nothing to debate" seems like an awful cop-out to me. If the "fact" of evolution is so blindingly, dazzling, stunningly obvious, then not only Bill Nye, but also Paris Hilton should be able to mop the floor with Ken Ham in a debate. On the other hand... perhaps there's something to this debate after all.. hmm? Let's watch it and find out. Tuesday, Feb 4th 7pm.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Science is not decided by debates, it advances through research and peer review. When Ham has objective, empirical evidence for his sectarian claims, he can participate in the process. All he actually has, though, is a book of bronze and iron age myths and the willingness to be as intellectually dishonest as necessary to cling to those in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Nye should not be giving him credibility that he has not earned and he certainly shouldn't be complicit in raising funds for Ham's execrable "museum".

https://me.yahoo.com/a/SLoKpW1xsdSo169D9hLZQuKWYw2gPZaONw--#ba94a said: "There's nothing to debate" seems like an awful cop-out to me. If the "fact" of evolution is so blindingly, dazzling, stunningly obvious, then not only Bill Nye, but also Paris Hilton should be able to mop the floor with Ken Ham in a debate. On the other hand... perhaps there's something to this debate after all.. hmm? Let's watch it and find out. Tuesday, Feb 4th 7pm.

Rolf said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/SLoKpW1xsdSo169D9hLZQuKWYw2gPZaONw--#ba94a said: "There's nothing to debate" seems like an awful cop-out to me. If the "fact" of evolution is so blindingly, dazzling, stunningly obvious, then not only Bill Nye, but also Paris Hilton should be able to mop the floor with Ken Ham in a debate. On the other hand... perhaps there's something to this debate after all.. hmm? Let's watch it and find out. Tuesday, Feb 4th 7pm.

A debate? Really? AIG says the purpose is to "bring the creation/evolution issue to the attention of many more people, including youngsters."

https://me.yahoo.com/a/SLoKpW1xsdSo169D9hLZQuKWYw2gPZaONw--#ba94a said: Why don't you watch it and see if it really goes like that? No, you won't watch it. Instead you'll mock it and pretend to be knowledgable about it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/SLoKpW1xsdSo169D9hLZQuKWYw2gPZaONw--#ba94a said: If the "fact" of evolution is so blindingly, dazzling, stunningly obvious

Please be aware that the associated complications and struggles have been beyond our control. ... ... many challenges and road blocks came up as we worked through the stages of the bond offering and the first closing. From atheists attempting to register for the bond offering and disrupting it, to secular bloggers and reporters writing very misleading and inaccurate articles about the bonds, to brokerage firms saying “yes” but after reading these incorrect reports saying “no” in allowing the Ark bonds into their client accounts—the obstacles were numerous and disruptive. ... I know this may have caused some confusion, extra steps, and even frustration, which perhaps led you to not be able to move forward or to have doubts about participating in the Ark bond offering. ... As I’ve written to you before, the attacks we have seen on the Ark bond offering have just confirmed for me that the Enemy [sic] does not want this project to go ahead. Actually, though, the opposition just encourages me. You see, if we weren’t involved in a vital Bible-proclaiming outreach that should have a massive impact on the hearts and lives of countless people, I don’t believe we would see this sort of opposition.

Matt Young said: The Louisville paper LEO Weekly paraphrases Ken Ham to the effect that the "Ark Encounter [is] close to failure because of “atheists,” “secular” media and possibly the devil himself." Mr. Ham's own words, as taken from an e-mail acquired by LEO Weekly:

Please be aware that the associated complications and struggles have been beyond our control. ... ... many challenges and road blocks came up as we worked through the stages of the bond offering and the first closing. From atheists attempting to register for the bond offering and disrupting it, to secular bloggers and reporters writing very misleading and inaccurate articles about the bonds, to brokerage firms saying “yes” but after reading these incorrect reports saying “no” in allowing the Ark bonds into their client accounts—the obstacles were numerous and disruptive. ... I know this may have caused some confusion, extra steps, and even frustration, which perhaps led you to not be able to move forward or to have doubts about participating in the Ark bond offering. ... As I’ve written to you before, the attacks we have seen on the Ark bond offering have just confirmed for me that the Enemy [sic] does not want this project to go ahead. Actually, though, the opposition just encourages me. You see, if we weren’t involved in a vital Bible-proclaiming outreach that should have a massive impact on the hearts and lives of countless people, I don’t believe we would see this sort of opposition.

If the statement about the brokerage houses is true, then perhaps we have not been beating our heads against the wall for nothing.

I'll watch it, if I can acquire it here, but with foreboding.

I looked at youtube debates, and I saw able rhetoricians on the creationist side, against mumblers, twitchers, gabblers and gaggers on the side of science. I watch as people who have no ability to control, modulate, or project their voices, and who are visibly ill-at-ease, are made to look foolish by slick, organised, smooth operators with the vocal and presentation skills of actors. The scientists may be armed with the facts, but that is insufficient. They need skills that are outside their job description, and generally speaking, have never acquired.

The audience is invariably hostile, bussed in for the occasion, and that will go in spades in Ham's own hall. The pressure thus exerted is palpable, and it tells, however irrelevant that should be. I watched the ball being dropped, over and over, by speakers who are flummoxed by insouciant falsehood, or who simply have never heard of the myths their opponents nonchalently retail as if they were fact. Familiar with the theory of evolution, they allow the opposition to purvey grotesque caricatures of it. Rapid-fire assertions, made confidently and with every appearance of knowledge and sincerity, cannot be countered by technical detail - the audience won't understand, will dismiss it as gobbledegook, and in any case there is no time.

Another problem specific to Nye vs Ham is that scientists have little or no appreciation of religious young-earth creationism as a culturally-mandated belief system. To most of the people present, if you don't read Genesis literally, you don't accept that the Bible is authoritative, and you've therefore rejected God - in fact, that you're at war with God. It passes the understanding of any rational mind how the audience can believe that, as an essential component of their world-view, but they do. I know that the obvious recourse is to attack so flagrantly irrational a set of ideas. It won't work. The debate simply must not be allowed to go there. A rational proposition must be insisted on, and rigidly adhered to.

There are some bright spots. One is that the theory of evolution is, at its core, very simple. Oh, don't get me wrong. It is also complex and abstruse, and it can be counter-intuitive. But the basic reasoning is based on plainly obvious facts: that living things self-replicate with variation; that the environment must favour some variations and disfavour others; and that the environment changes over time. "The rest is detail," as the Rabbi Hillel remarked of the Golden Rule. (He added: "Now go and study." Details are important.)

In rebuttal, there's another bright spot. It's not, paradoxically, that the creationist arguments are false to the point of downright fraud. It is that they are all well-worn, and can be studied in advance and the counters prepared.

Mind, that means countering the "arguments" that are actually advanced. There is nothing worse than a rebuttal that flails away at points that were never actually made. It's like watching an outmatched boxer punching the empty air.

It's also like learning by heart the first six moves of all the known variations of all the standard chess openings. Hundreds and hundreds of lines, even though you'll use only one of them in any game. It's necessary, but with this added requirement - that even if the countermoves be exactly logical and remorselessly precise, they must be made forcefully, with flair. And, yes, authority.

Authority is meaningless in science, but it is not meaningless in debate. And if you're going to play on their park, you have to play by their understanding of the game, but not using their preferred methods - falsehood, misrepresentation, misinformation, fraud and downright lies.

Good luck with all that, Mr Nye. You'll need it.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/SLoKpW1xsdSo169D9hLZQuKWYw2gPZaONw--#ba94a said:

DS said: I think I know how the debate will go. Something like this: Ken: The earth is six thousand years old. Bill: No it isn't. Ken: Yes it is. Bill: How do you know? Ken: The bible says so. Bill: No it doesn't. Ken: Yes it does. Bill: No it doesn't. Anyway, here are six independent lines of evidence that prove that the earth must be at least millions of years old. Ken: I don't care. Bill: You have to care. Ken: No i don't. I don't recognize your authority. Bill: It's not my opinion, it's the consensus of all scientists everywhere. Ken: Were they there? Bill: No, were you? Ken: No, but Jesus was and that's good enough for me. Bill: No he wasn't ... Moderator: That's all we have time for folks. Ken wins! As the winner, do you have any last words Ken? Ken: Yea, we must teach critical thinking or young people will be persuaded by the facts told to them by humanists.

Why don't you watch it and see if it really goes like that? No, you won't watch it. Instead you'll mock it and pretend to be knowledgable about it.

Matt Young said: Mr. Ham's own words, as taken from an e-mail acquired by LEO Weekly:

Please be aware that the associated complications and struggles have been beyond our control. ... ... many challenges and road blocks came up as we worked through the stages of the bond offering and the first closing. From atheists attempting to register for the bond offering and disrupting it, to secular bloggers and reporters writing very misleading and inaccurate articles about the bonds, to brokerage firms saying “yes” but after reading these incorrect reports saying “no” [emphasis added] in allowing the Ark bonds into their client accounts—the obstacles were numerous and disruptive.

If the statement about the brokerage houses is true, then perhaps we have not been beating our heads against the wall for nothing.

gnome de net said: I hope any brokerage firm worthy of that distinction would make investment decisions based on its own research and analyses rather than the opinions of secular bloggers and reporters.

John said:

gnome de net said: I hope any brokerage firm worthy of that distinction would make investment decisions based on its own research and analyses rather than the opinions of secular bloggers and reporters.

I am sure Goldman Sachs and other notable Wall Street firms did not rely on the "opinions of secular bloggers and reporters....." or the views of Darwinian Conservatives such as yours truly. Am reasonably confident that they knew that the Hamster's proposed amusement park would be the financial equivalent of securing a room aboard the RMS Titanic's maiden voyage.

My friend Alert Reader has just sent me a link to this splendid cartoon in the Louisville Courier-Journal. I think that says it all -- it is not the "atheists" who sank the Ark, but rather a dose of reality.

I'm sure that when potential investors realized that he wasn't going to build a real ark, they figured out that it was all just a scam. As opposed to if he had tried to actually build a real ark, in which case they would have found out too late to get their money back.

John said:

Tenncrain said: For good measure it could also be good to contact Ken Miller and have him reach out to Nye, as Ken may be between semesters now at Brown Univ. As many of us know, Miller could give excellent advice from direct experience, as Miller bested both Henry Morris and Duane Gish in debates during the 1980s. It was telling that Bill Dembski suddenly withdrew from a planned debate with Miller at Case Western Reserve University in Jan 2006. Besides Dembski demonstrating a past history of being not-so-great in a detate-type format, ID having had just lost big in the Kitzmiller court case was probably also a factor in Dembski running away. But it was no problem for Miller, as he simply gave a lecture at Case Western on how the Kitzmiller plaintiffs won bigtime; video of this 2006 Case Western talk by Miller is easy to Google up (Miller was the lead expert witness for the Dover plaintiffs).

Bill may have remembered how Ken and Robert Pennock cleaned his clock at AMNH; that debate was moderated by Genie Scott who steps down today as NCSE executive director. Ken had studied prior debates Henry Morris had, so he was well prepared to deal with him, much to the disappointment of my fellow Xian Brunonians as well as the hordes that descended upon Brown's hockey rink, courtesy of local Xian churches in MA, RI and CT. I recommended to Bill and to Don that Bill studies Ham's prior debates merely to get a very good sense of Ham's rhetorical style, which Ken did with Morris, and later, of course, with Gish.

John said:

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Science is not decided by debates, it advances through research and peer review. When Ham has objective, empirical evidence for his sectarian claims, he can participate in the process. All he actually has, though, is a book of bronze and iron age myths and the willingness to be as intellectually dishonest as necessary to cling to those in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Nye should not be giving him credibility that he has not earned and he certainly shouldn't be complicit in raising funds for Ham's execrable "museum".

I am in full agreement with your observations, Patrick. The creotards posting here tend to forget that mainstream Christian theologians, ranging from Pope Francis I to the Archbishop of Canterbury, accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for biological evolution and that current evolutionary theory is its best scientific explanation. Indeed, there is far more robust proof supporting the fact of biological evolution than there is for string theory.

I believe that some versions of String Theory do make testable predictions. I vaguely remember hearing that most of those testable predictions are either A) not exclusive to String Theory and so also accommodated by more conventional physics, or B) being falsified by failing to win experimental support.

Found one of the links I've read previously, purporting to demonstrate how the LHC eliminates some version of String Theory.

Today's Daily Kos has an article, Bill Nye explains why, which shows several videos of Mr. Nye. I have not watched them yet, but there is nothing especially recent, and the "Why" in the head does not refer to the "debate" with Mr. Ham. Some of the comments refer to the "debate," however, and echo concerns written here on PT.

SLC said: He may also have found out how poorly Henry Morris did against Miller in a debate held at Brown, which, I understand that Kwok attended.

Matt Young said: Today's Daily Kos has an article, Bill Nye explains why, which shows several videos of Mr. Nye. I have not watched them yet, but there is nothing especially recent, and the "Why" in the head does not refer to the "debate" with Mr. Ham. Some of the comments refer to the "debate," however, and echo concerns written here on PT.

There seems to be a degree of panic about any public debate with creationists, and for good reason. They know exactly were the Achilles heel of naturalism and Darwinism is.

They know that Methodological naturalism operates on the premise that everything in science is "tentative" and "not necessarily the final word". They also know that when mainstream science began to assert that science was the "final word" it turned methodological naturalism and the scientific method on its head. And moved from "methodological" to METAPHYSICAL (or philosophical) naturalism; from operational science to ideology, and from science to scientism.

NATURALISM is the METAPHYSICAL position that "nature is ALL THERE IS, and ALL basic truths are truths of nature."

SCIENTISM is "The precept that science is the foundation of ALL knowledge and that ALL truth can be arrived at by the empirical method." - Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,(Macmillan, p. 372-373).

They therefore know that evolutionists and atheists, of necessity, operate on the assumption that the above two statements are true. As to believe otherwise is to technically endorse a "creative" power. As such, mainstream science now operates on unproved "blind faith" metaphysical assertions and scientism. A reality affirmed by the fact that mainstream science now operates on the premise that science can, and will, define ALL REALITY in terms of natural causes alone - with the godless "Theory of Everything". A TOE based on unresolved issues, hypothetical theories, subjective mind "experiments", fancy math, and missing and invisible things. Resulting in paradoxes, inconsistencies, and ever more mysteries - the "finite" mind seeking to define the "infinite". Thus, the starting hypothesis of naturalism becomes the "conclusion", making naturalism and evolution unfalsifiable.

The creationist scientists also well know that their worldview is a contemporary version of the enduring teleological Intelligent Design scientific framework, in which the pioneers of modern science and operational experimental science works today. Namely, the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause", rather than undirected chance events or unguided random processes.

Every scientist in every field of research functions on the precept that scientists can apply vast amounts of reason and intelligence to understand and harness the natural world because the universe itself is both RATIONAL and INTELLIGIBLE. Without which it is IMPOSSIBLE to do science. No rational scientist works on the principle that they apply their considerable intelligence to investigate a NON-INTELLIGENT universe. Nor does any rational scientist operate on the principle that the superbly coordination nature and design everywhere observed in the natural world and living creatures only "appears" to be designed. Nor that the biological systems and designs scientists replicate in technology are merely "apparent".

Furthermore, the creationist scientists well know that it's not just the origin of life that evolutionist have a problem with, but EVERY essential element of the evolutionary continuum. And that evolutionary "historical theories" about the unobserved distant past are all based entirely based on "subjective" ideological interpretations, inferences, and multiple assumptions.
None of which can be empirically tested and verified, using experimentation and observation. There is NO VERIFIABLE experimental or observational "scientific evidence" for ANY of the phases of the supposed evolutionary continuum: Not the origin of life! Nor the origin of the DNA double helix; Nor the origin of consciousness; Nor the origin of mind; Nor the complementary origin of sexual reproduction biology; Nor the origin of vastly complex genetic coding and highly structured information; Nor the origin of language and music; Nor the origin of reason and intelligence' Nor the origin of conscience and morality; Nor the origin of the religious instinct; Nor the origin of a vast multitude of other life-form characteristics. In fact, as acknowledged by the National Academy of Sciences, even speciation remains a mystery. None-the-less, on the basis of "blind faith" evolutionists simply believe that "Evolution did it" rather than God.

Indeed, creationists scientists well know that it is not a matter of whether on not a "metaphysical" belief is being promoted in science classes, but rather which "metaphysical" belief is being imposed: Namely, the "metaphysics" of atheism and godless materialism. Where science alone defines ALL REALITY, to the exclusion of the teleological worldview on which all operational science operates, of necessity.

Thus, you would all identify with the story of the atheists and evolutionary scientists who where about to board a flight to the atheist global convention. As they were heading towards the plane the air hostess informed them that the probability of their particular plane reaching its destination was about as probable as the wonders and design of the universe and life coming about by undirected "chance" cosmic events, and unguided natural selection. Shock horror! They all frantically raced back to the terminal. With the pilots and air hostesses racing past them.

- Cheers

Perhaps it's not so bad, since Nye isn't a scientist, but a humorous science entertainer. Hamm isn't debating a scientist, but an entertainer- more on the level of debating Colbert.

Well, at least the new troll is more articulate than Byers. You don't have to guess about what he's saying. Still, all he has is blind assertion, with nothing to back up his "faith" in these mythical "Creation Scientists" that he keeps going on and on about.

Perhaps he could name one of these "Creation Scientists", and what kind of "Science" that person actually does?

METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM is what works. Deal with it.

Yawn.

johnheno said: There seems to be a degree of panic about any public debate with creationists, and for good reason. They know exactly were the Achilles heel of naturalism and Darwinism is.

johnheno said: There seems to be a degree of panic about any public debate with creationists, and for good reason.

They know exactly were the Achilles heel of naturalism and Darwinism is.

They know that Methodological naturalism operates on the premise that everything in science is "tentative" and "not necessarily the final word".

They also know that when mainstream science began to assert that science was the "final word" it turned methodological naturalism and the scientific method on its head. And moved from "methodological" to METAPHYSICAL (or philosophical) naturalism; from operational science to ideology, and from science to scientism. NATURALISM is the METAPHYSICAL position that "nature is ALL THERE IS, and ALL basic truths are truths of nature." SCIENTISM is "The precept that science is the foundation of ALL knowledge and that ALL truth can be arrived at by the empirical method." - Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,(Macmillan, p. 372-373).

They therefore know that evolutionists and atheists,

Anyone remember this blast from the past?
On the Origins of Methodological Naturalism

I think johnheno is new enough to have missed it:

johnheno said: NATURALISM is the METAPHYSICAL position that “nature is ALL THERE IS, and ALL basic truths are truths of nature.” SCIENTISM is “The precept that science is the foundation of ALL knowledge and that ALL truth can be arrived at by the empirical method.” - Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,(Macmillan, p. 372-373). They therefore know that evolutionists and atheists, of necessity, operate on the assumption that the above two statements are true.

As to believe otherwise is to technically endorse a "creative" power. As such, mainstream science now operates on unproved "blind faith" metaphysical assertions and scientism. A reality affirmed by the fact that mainstream science now operates on the premise that science can, and will, define ALL REALITY in terms of natural causes alone - with the godless "Theory of Everything". A TOE based on unresolved issues, hypothetical theories, subjective mind "experiments", fancy math, and missing and invisible things. Resulting in paradoxes, inconsistencies, and ever more mysteries - the "finite" mind seeking to define the "infinite". Thus, the starting hypothesis of naturalism becomes the "conclusion", making naturalism and evolution unfalsifiable.

johnheno said: None of which can be empirically tested and verified, using experimentation and observation. There is NO VERIFIABLE experimental or observational "scientific evidence" for ANY of the phases of the supposed evolutionary continuum:

Not the origin of life! Nor the origin of the DNA double helix; Nor the origin of consciousness; Nor the origin of mind; Nor the complementary origin of sexual reproduction biology; Nor the origin of vastly complex genetic coding and highly structured information; Nor the origin of language

and music; Nor the origin of reason and intelligence' Nor the origin of conscience and morality; Nor the origin of the religious instinct; Nor the origin of a vast multitude of other life-form characteristics. In fact, as acknowledged by the National Academy of Sciences, even speciation remains a mystery. None-the-less, on the basis of "blind faith" evolutionists simply believe that "Evolution did it" rather than God.