Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate – NBC News

61

Some scientists were skeptical that Bill Nye the Science Guy, who made his name as the host of a TV show for children, could hold his own in Tuesday's debate over evolution and creationism — but now that it's over, his performance has won praise from those skeptics, and perhaps some respect from the creationist side as well.

"I think Nye won — and I could have decided he lost if he couldn't hold his own," said Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago who has a blog as well as a book titled "Why Evolution Is True."

It may not sound so surprising that Coyne gave the nod to Nye over his debate opponent, creationist Ken Ham. But just last week, Coyne told NBC News that he feared Nye would be walking into a rhetorical "buzzsaw" at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

"One of the reasons Nye won is that Ham did such a crappy job," Coyne said. He said that Ham, the head of the museum as well as a Christian outreach organization called Answers in Genesis, hobbled his case by repeatedly referring to the Bible as the ultimate authority on natural history.

Dan Arel, a writer for the Richard Dawkins Foundation who insisted last month that Nye should not give Ham a forum for his views, gave the win to the Science Guy.

Written By: ALAN BOYLE
continue to source article at nbcnews.com

61 COMMENTS

  1. All credit to Bill Nye, but don’t have any doubt, that those who have no respect for science, facts, evidence, or truth, will make up their own TRRRrrrrooo version of events – and proclaim Ham’s triumph – with a heap of ignorant “evaluations” of the “arguments”, from faith-head YECs who watched the debate through their bias-blinkers.

  2. Nye did a much better job than I thought he would. It was certainly far from perfect and I think he should of put the boot in more often, but I guess that’s just not Bill’s style.

    • In reply to #2 by The Truth, the light:

      Nye did a much better job than I thought he would. It was certainly far from perfect and I think he should of put the boot in more often, but I guess that’s just not Bill’s style.

      “Should of put the boot in..” has English really sunk this low?

      • In reply to #3 by FrankMill:

        >

        “Should of put the boot in..” has English really sunk this low?

        I can’t tell, is English The Truth, the Light’s first language? How can you tell or are you just unfamiliar with the casual, non judgmental nature of internet discussion forums?

        These places are usually for commenting on the TOPIC not the quality of English of the worldwide users.

        • In reply to #3 by FrankMill:

          “Should of put the boot in..” has English really sunk this low?
          >

          Oh calm down, FWIW, it is an almost clever reference to the working class slang of the early 20th century, the following from “The Sentimental Bloke,” (1915) by the Australian poet, C.J. Dennis, in which his hero recounts, in dialect, a performance of Romeo and Juliet:

          Quite natchril, Romeo gits wet as ‘ell.

          “It’s me or you!” ‘e ‘owls, an’ wiv a yell,

          Plunks Tyball through the gizzard wiv ‘is sword,

          ‘Ow I ongcored!

          “Put in the boot!” I sez. “Put in the boot”

          To stay on topic, I thought Bill Nye did as well as he could, under the circumstances.

  3. What heavy weights! I mean, wow,”fish didn’t get diseases until after the fall?”

    HEADY stuff.

    What a disappointment, intellectually. Bill Nye did fine, I guess you can only talk about the things that are on the table, but really?

    What a low brow Ken Ham is and came off as. An absolute intellectual turd. Nye crushed him, but, he is like a styrofoam cup.

  4. I was disappointed with Nye’s response to Petrified Wood in Basalt. Even if Nye was not familiar with the research he should have realized that dates being returned of 45,000 years and 45,000,000 years were methods of 2 different dating methods, which would have drawn skepticism from such a claim.

    As well as the older dating of newly formed volcanic rock, which is a centerpeice for Ken, is knowably mis represented and should have been research by Nye for the debate.

    Besides that, I think Ken did himself in by just saying bible over and over again.

    PS – What I would have asked Mr. Ham, after he showed his “flood tree of kinds”, is if he could produce one instance of 2 Pitbulls giving birth to a Yorkie, since they assert common ancestry. That’s a common attack such as show where a reptile gives birth to a mammal. He offers two different burdens of proof. Evolution is so obvious with the evidence he HAD to show common decent somehow b/c it is so well known.

  5. Ham’s argument that “historical science” is just a wild guess because “you weren’t there” is laughable. Never mind that he wasn’t around when his sky-fairy supposedly created the universe, but that doesn’t keep him from accepting it. When he is informed about his mental gymnastics, he just puts his fingers in his ears and la,la,la, god did it.

    The stupid burns.

  6. I thought Bill Nye did fine, however he was hobbled somewhat by trying to be too polite, part of the problem was both parties followed too strictly the debate format which gave Ham the ability to duck every question and just re-state the claim that if you were not there you can not know it happened. If Nye had been more willing to criticise the religious he would have pointed out the obvious flaw in Ham’s argument here, that Ham wasn’t there in biblical times either so failing that you can only base knowledge on what you can infer from the actual evidence. Had Nye done this however (and I’m sure the thought must have occurred to him) he would have risked offending those he wishes to come on board with the science. I do understand his motives, he wants support for science but I fear we will loose the battle unless the likes of Ham are seen by the general public as what they are frauds or fools or both. A little insistence that Ham actually answer a simple question would have gone a long way.

    • In reply to #7 by Reckless Monkey:

      If Nye had been more willing to criticise the religious he would have pointed out the obvious flaw in Ham’s argument here, that Ham wasn’t there in biblical times either …

      But God was there. And it’s his word in the bible. So QED. Because faith. Or something.

  7. I thought Nye did well. It was all very civil, too civil for the likes of me, but I appreciated Nye’s approach.

    Ham cited some creationist scientists among them geologist Andrew Snelling who appears to play the part of both good cop, bad cop. Of course Ham never argued the case for a young Earth, just asserted it and claimed scientific backing from his tame “experts” !

    Ham admitted that he would never change his mind, – but I suspect a good few others will do exactly that !

  8. Ham only demonstrates what most of us go through when confronted by an unreasoning theist: an unwillingness to ever examine their own beliefs critically or to ever admit being wrong about things they themselves cannot prove.

    I applaud Nye’s efforts, but I feel they were wasted.

    • In reply to #9 by achromat666:

      I applaud Nye’s efforts, but I feel they were wasted.

      On Ham, most certainly. But like in all these kind of debates, the prize isn’t your opponent, but the unwitting public.

      • In reply to #11 by obzen:

        In reply to #9 by achromat666:

        I applaud Nye’s efforts, but I feel they were wasted.

        On Ham, most certainly. But like in all these kind of debates, the prize isn’t your opponent, but the unwitting public.

        Agreed, I was referring to Ham in particular. But the public does need to see the fallacy of Ham’s reasoning, so in that aspect it is a plus.

  9. I agree Billl did better than some feared. That strange Ham idea of ‘historical science’……I had never heard that before. Perhaps he means science about things earlier than recorded human history ? Bizarre. Bill could have popped in a comment that police forces around the world should then give up detective work, as “they weren’t there”, and their standard methods of observation, collection of evidence, interviewing the witnesses and deduction cannot work. I agree too that Ham did poorly. I was hoping for Bill to list a bunch of scientific fields, and ask Ham if he really thinks that the majority of qualified scientists in each and every field, are all wrong about evolution and the age of the earth/universe. I think sometimes people need to see all those fields listed together.

    • In reply to #12 by rod-the-farmer:

      I agree Billl did better than some feared. That strange Ham idea of ‘historical science’……I had never heard that before. Perhaps he means science about things earlier than recorded human history ? Bizarre. Bill could have popped in a comment that police forces around the world should then gi…

      I agree with you. I think it can be safely said that all scientific fields dovetail or run in parallel at certain points, and one such point is evolution; that’s when all the arrows point in the same direction.

      Other than that it isn’t really possible to have a nourishing debate with those of a religious mentality since there’s little or nothing preventing them from making stuff up on the hoof.

      Nonetheless, I think Bill Nye did well, albeit his not, I think, fully utilizing the scientific armoury at his disposal; although had he done so he may have alienated the proportion of the audience he most needed to persuade.

      Anyway, as they say in the British boxing fraternity “the boy done good!”

      S G

  10. I have only watched the first exchange in the debate, already I agree with JuJu: “Ham’s argument that “historical science” is just a wild guess because “you weren’t there” is laughable.”

    To solve the problem of prison crowding we should introduce Ham’s logic as the basis for law:
    (1) we found a finger print at the murder scene. Ken’s law: were you there? Did you see it? No? Release the prisoner!
    (2) we also found matching DNA at the murder scene. Ken’s law: were you there? Did you see it? No? Release the prisoner!

    Reckless Monkey already expressed a view that occurred to me the first time I saw Ken debate: “… the obvious flaw in Ham’s argument here, that Ham wasn’t there in biblical times either so failing that you can only base knowledge on what you can infer from the actual evidence.”. If Ken’s nonsensical argument does nullify all observational and historical Science it must also destroy his own beliefs. Ken was not there for Adam and Eve – he cannot be sure.

  11. Of course Ham is a fool or worse, of course his stand is absurd. But isn’t the “winner” of a debate the one who is the better debater, not necessarily the one whose position is better? The fact that Nye “won” the debate only reflects his better debating ability, not the fact, as we all know, that he is entirely correct. You could pit a guy like me, atheist but not good at thinking on his feet, against a glib, quick-thinking creationist, and I could well “lose” the debating contest.

    I once had to take a course in the Ag School at the University of Illinois called “Breeds and Market Classes of Livestock.” For extra credit you could show an animal in a competition, as though in a county fair. The Ag School supplied you an animal, a cow for example, at random; you were judged on your ability to show it, not on the animal itself, which could well be an inferior specimen. I see an analogy here with calling Nye “Winner.” As it turned out in the debate, Nye had both the better cow and the better debating ability, and I’m glad he came out looking so good.

  12. Well, I watched that whole thing, but it was not much fun. Nye was walking a tight rope of presenting the science that shoots holes in Ham while at the same time trying not to put off the religious people who are not as crazy as Ham (yes, there are millions of those). Ham did not need to win any of the points, he just needed to present himself as someone standing up for the Bible so that more Bible literalists would send him more cash for his Ark Project. We will see if Ham won what he was trying to win if he does float his Ark bonds in this next week, or if the boondoggle sinks, unfinished.

    Even Pat Robertson knows better.

    • In reply to #19 by Quine:
      >

      Ham did not need to win any of the points, he just needed to present himself as someone standing up for the Bible so that more Bible literalists would send him more cash for his Ark Project. We will see if Ham won what he was trying to win if he does float his Ark bonds in this next week, or if the boondoggle sinks, unfinished.

      Now if some media interests could be persuaded to run a feature on the cuneiform clay tablet about “THE Ark”, the media could “debate the controversy” while Ham was trying to raise the bond money for a steel-reinforced wooden boat which bears no resemblance to the Sumerian original. That would be an interesting controversy!

      http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2014/01/controversial-3700-year-old-sumerian-clay-tablet-discovered-claims-noahs-ark-was-round-video-and-pics-2458292.html

      Controversial new theory claims that Noah’s Ark was round, and made of reeds. Leading academic, Dr. Irving Finkel, declares a recently deciphered 4,000-year-old tablet from ancient Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) brought to light the remarkable new details concerning the biblical account of Noah.

      The story told on the cuneiform clay tablet is nearly identical to that of the Holy Bible, except it states the instructions demanded a giant ’round’ ark, known as a coracle, in addition to the key direction that animals were to enter ‘two by two.

      The text depicts God speaking to a Sumerian king named Atram-Hasis, the Noah figure in earlier versions of the ark story. God states, ‘Wall, wall! Reed wall, reed wall! Atram-Hasis, pay heed to my advice, that you may live forever! Destroy your house, build a boat; despise possessions and save life! Draw out the boat that you will built with a circular design; Let its length and breadth be the same.’

  13. As tweeted soon thereafter, the debate was forfeited the pico second Ham responded to a question by saying that nothing could convince him to change his mind.

    Nye said evidence could.

    That’s a wrap. Or I could almost envision Christopher Hitchens throwing up his hands and saying, “Well, brothers and sisters, ladies and gentleman, comrades…there we have it: Exhibit A: a mind forged manacle.”

    Mike

  14. Nye was pushing his agenda, proper science education, and not necessarily our agenda which seems to be thrashing and trashing religion. Given that metric, he could hardly have done any better. He wanted to make science inclusive and preach not to those hopelessly lost in the fog of a flawed old book but to those on the edges who would have been put off by a Hitch-like performance.

    Given what I perceive as his goal, it was masterful.

    • In reply to #23 by Nitya:

      Interesting that Ham mentioned the Tower of Babel on numerous occasions as this must be one of the most ludicrous notions to be found in the bible.

      Is that where the first Babelfish was found?

  15. If we had titles for our comments, I’d put Much Ado About Nothing.

    In the end, as a non-scientist, I’m sorry to say I thought Ken Ham did ok. I wasn’t persuaded obviously, but all creationists have to do is make a “scientific” claim which contradicts the mainstream claim and non-scientists like me are none the wiser. What has to be stressed is the weight of evidence, and the different forms of evidence which come together. This persuades me that mainstream science has got it right. Even if they haven’t and Ken is actually right and god did do it, then it is still the logical position to follow mainstream science for now.

    Where I thought Ken Ham was bad was when he went off on a theological rant – he did it about 3 or 4 times. His arguments for god and the truth of genesis were (not surprisingly) very weak.

    Conclusion? I don’t think I’ll be watching many more science debates of this kind. Let’s take the religious on where it hurts – let’s debate the truth of their god stories and put the pressure on them to prove their case. Without their god, creationists are nowhere anyway.

  16. In the old Soviet Union, political offenders weren’t put in prison, they were put in mental institutions. Can you imagine being surrounded by totally irrational people!? This is the real “debate,” trying to reason with those who are incapable or uninterested in critical thought. If Nye opened one mind just a little, he was the clear “winner.”

  17. Ah, the debate showed that the fears of some are not justified. Debating creationists doesn’t give them scientific respect. It shows that their vision is just wrong and clumsy. Plus, any debate where Nye can speak is always a good thing.

  18. One thing I feel everyone in the secular/skeptic community is overlooking is the fact that this debate was covered by all the respectable news agencies. I have seen positive reviews from NBC, CBS, CNN etc. etc. Bill Nye brought our message to the masses in grand style. He also showed the world what an ignoramus Ken Ham and his like truly are. This could and would not have happened if the debate had been between Ken and almost any of the excellent debaters in the secular/skeptic communities. Thank You Bill Nye for your passion for science and your awesome delivery of the message. Way to Go “Science Guy”

  19. To add a bit to what I wrote earlier- it was his restraint that shone through. He avoided the labels of “strident” and “arrogant”- how many times did he say “I find that very disturbing” when he probably wanted to say, “That’s the dumbest effing thing I ever heard!”

    • In reply to #32 by rjohn19:

      To add a bit to what I wrote earlier- it was his restraint that shone through. He avoided the labels of “strident” and “arrogant”- how many times did he say “I find that very disturbing” when he probably wanted to say, “That’s the dumbest effing thing I ever heard!”

      I’d love to know how Lawrence Krauss or PZ Meyers would have reacted to some of the idiocies coming from the mouth of Ken Ham.

    • In reply to #32 by rjohn19:

      To add a bit to what I wrote earlier – it was his restraint that shone through. He avoided the labels of “strident” and “arrogant”- how many times did he say “I find that very disturbing” when he probably wanted to say, “That’s the dumbest effing thing I ever heard!”

      Hi Rjohn. I also really liked when he referred to the ‘Creation Museum’ as ‘this facility’, then several times when he was talking about science & folk ‘on the outside’ with a smile & raised eyebrows – very subtle while in front of so many reality deniers…. 8-)

  20. I would have liked Bill Nye to tackle head on this idiotic distinction KH made between ‘observational’ science and ‘historical’ science. The audience should have been in no doubt that ‘historical’ science relies just as heavily on observation and even experiment as the ‘science of the present’.

    Also KHs’ weird position that science can’t know anything about what happened in the past whereas he can because the bible says so was laughable.

    That said, Bill Nye did a pretty good job.

  21. I thought it was funny when Ham more than once stated that we would not have the laws of logic if they hadn’t been given to us by God! Unfortunately Nye never got a real chance to respond to that (due to the format of the debate).

    • In reply to #36 by isometry:

      I thought it was funny when Ham more than once stated that we would not have the laws of logic if they hadn’t been given to us by God!

      I don’t suppose Ham explained how god had given him a special dispensation from being required to comply with them!

  22. Like many other rationalists I thought Bill Nye did well. How could he not, he was debating opposite a religious fossil with the mindset of a stone. Judging the success of the debate will likely depend on what side of the fence people are inclined towards. But having the benefit of watching Ham trying to think on his feet, was illuminating. Not only are his arguments flawed, his language is often patronising and incoherent.

    At one point he says ‘what I want people to understand too, regarding the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years, no Earth rock was dated to get that date, they dated meteorites because they assumed meteorites were the same age as the Earth left over from the formation of the solar system, that’s where that comes from’.

    This rambling sentence was rattled off at speed, as much of Hams delivery is, seemingly to blur the detail and appear confident. So let’s debunk this sentence for what it is. ‘No Earth rock was dated to get that date’. Why not Ken? There are lots of them lying around just waiting to be picked up for examination, but not one scientist thought of actually dating any of them. No, we had to wait for a meteorite to hit before we could find out the DATE OF THE EARTH. This is what Ham calls reason, and a fine example of how idiotic one has to be to buy his drivel. As everybody knows, thousands of Earth rocks have been dated, the oldest of which are clearly billions of years old. Ham is a liar and an idiot, it is possible to be both at the same time.

    It gets worse. ‘They assumed meteorites were the same age as the Earth’. A world of stupidity in one short sentence. Of course to Ken Ham the idea that the Earth’s age should be similar to the rest of the solar system, is quite beyond him. But even worse still these 4.5 billion year old meteorites which are confusing scientists into believing the Earth is much older than it is are… well…4.5 billion years old. Quote, ‘that’s where that comes from’. This of course is where Ken Ham’s world view explodes into a big bang of lunacy. The age of the Earth (all of creation) is only 6000 years old but the meteorites are billions of years old and the date of the Earth has been confused with these much older rocks. All of this piffle occurs in just 15 second of concentrated tosh. Frankly, if Ham actually believes this stuff he is certifiable.

    With such a concentration of intellectual bile in such a short period, Ham must hold the world record for BS per minute.

    • In reply to #38 by keyplayer88:

      At one point he says ‘what I want people to understand too, regarding the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years, no Earth rock was dated to get that date, they dated meteorites because they assumed meteorites were the same age as the Earth left over from the formation of the solar system, that’s where that comes from’.

      What he is trying to do is confuse people with geology.

      The Earth formed from the same accretion disk as the rest of the Solar System, but Very old Earth rocks are scarce and there are probably none from its original surface.

      Tectonic plates constantly recycle the Earth’s crust back underground as new rock is erupted at mid-ocean ridges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oceanic-spreading.svg

      The whole surface is replaced over time, but of course many rocks are millions of years old..

      This is of course too complicated to explain to an uneducated audience in a short time, while faced with a Gish-Gallop!

      • In reply to #40 by Sheepdog:

        I suspect that all these were photographed in a very short space of time at the AiG museum. If not there, somewhere equally nuts.

        The Buzzfeed site claims these people were “at” the Nye/Ham debate.

        So Ham brought along a rent-a-crowd.

    • In reply to #39 by Stevehill:

      Read this and weep -

      22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

      Oh dear! YEC edjunkation! – Retard’ parrot’s corner! Not an original thought to be seen! -

      Apart from;- “Relating to the big bang theory….. Where did the exploding star come from?”

      There was also the odd comical original spelling! “WHAT ABOUT NOETICS?”

      • In reply to #50 by Alan4discussion:

        There was also the odd comical original spelling! “WHAT ABOUT NOETICS?”

        Hi Alan. I also wondered what Noetics was earlier, so I’ve looked it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetics

        I guess some folk reckon they can do brain-scanning experiments via philosophical word juggling?
        Seems to me about as useful as biblical theology when researching physical reality…. 8-) Mac.

        • In reply to #51 by CdnMacAtheist:

          In reply to #50 by Alan4discussion:

          There was also the odd comical original spelling! “WHAT ABOUT NOETICS?”

          Hi Alan. I also wondered what Noetics was earlier, so I’ve looked it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetics

          They could have read about some invented “etherial” YEC vocabulary, (like Baraminology) but the Occam explanation at a Hammy level, could be “NO ETHICS?” without the H .

          • In reply to #52 by Alan4discussion:

            In reply to #51 by CdnMacAtheist:
            There was also the odd comical original spelling! “WHAT ABOUT NOETICS?”

            Following your communal thread.

            NOETICS:
            Quote, ‘exploring phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor’. Their own definition, and a complete contradiction in terms.

            ‘Conventional’ meaning (real) science as distinct from unconventional (as in pseudo) science. That would explain it.

            NOETICS or NOIDEA same thing.

            These dullards are a plague on reason and rationality.

            I venture a new branching of the human species into, Homo Sensiblis and Homo Dementis.

    • In reply to #39 by Stevehill:

      Read this and weep -

      22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

      Steve Hill

      22 examples of the preposterous science drivel in the heads of Holey Babble believers!

  23. At first I had reservations about this debate, but Bill seemed well prepared and did a great job communicating to the laymen. While it can be argued that taking part in a debate like this benefits the Creationists by giving them the appearance of having credibility, I think Ham undermined the efforts of the Intelligent Design crowd by constantly referring to bible.

  24. I maybe just wasted an hour of my life by trying to see what I could find out, technically, about “Ham’s Ark.” I am a Naval Architect, with many years experience in the design and construction of large vessels, and I do feel qualified to comment. Some information, and conclusions:

    The company undertaking this (Troyer) have no experience in marine construction.

    It is not intended to attempt to float. This is a good thing, as it would then be required to conform to Coast Guard and American Bureau of Shipping criteria, which it cannot. Timber sealed with pitch rules it out on flammability grounds alone. I suspect they will have issues with this anyway.

    A Korean study, commissioned by a creationist group, is cited to demonstrate the stability and structural integrity of the ark. If you find it, do not be fooled by the math. It involves the most basic and simplistic expressions of ship stability. I would regard it at the same level as a basic first year home work assignment for students, and it includes massive and unsupportable assumptions about centres of gravity and deck loads. Big animals are heavy, and cannot be loaded high up, etc etc etc.

    Despite claims, it is not that big, really, 21,000 tons displacement. About the size of a 200 meter cargo vessel. The Chinese “Treasure Ships,” of 1421, despite being controversial, but still way more likely, were bigger.

    What a tragic, tragic, waste of timber.

  25. Ham’s argument comes down to this. Every single thing we know about science was different 4,000 years ago. Light moved faster, tectonic plates moved faster, speciation happened at a faster rate, trees grew more than one ring a year etc. Why? Because you were not there and the bible tells me so.

    • In reply to #45 by neroman79:

      Ham’s argument comes down to this. Every single thing we know about science was different 4,000 years ago. Light moved faster, tectonic plates moved faster, speciation happened at a faster rate, trees grew more than one ring a year etc.

      And the animals were all different too. According to Answers in Genesis, none, that’s right none, of the animals that were around and went onto the ark exist today, because today’s animals have all evolved over the last 4000 years from their “original kind” which went onto the ark. All the original ancestor “kinds” have gone.

      Ken Ham is not even sure whether there were sheep and goats as it may be these evolved from a common “kind”. More research is apparently needed! So yes, the world would indeed have been completely different back then. And yet, at the same time, Ken Ham thinks he knows so accurately what god, Adam and Eve, Noah and all the rest were doing and saying!

      • In reply to #47 by GPWC:

        In reply to #45 by neroman79:

        And the animals were all different too. According to Answers in Genesis, none, that’s right none, of the animals that were around and went onto the ark exist today, because today’s animals have all evolved over the last 4000 years from their “original kind” which went onto the ark. All the original ancestor “kinds” have gone.

        That’s the thing about pseudoscience derived from “faith-thinking” – every little clique has its own version of re-written pseudo-history. Hence the infighting between dogmatic faith-heads about whose pseudo-science is the “right” version!

        There was an example of this here on another Bill Nye discussion. http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation-articles/2014/2/5/did-bill-nye-hurt-science#comment-box-23

  26. I am glad that Bill was well prepared and seems avoided giving Ham a publicity boost for his pseudo-science and money-making scams.

    I would however caution other would-be debaters, who may not have Bill’s media presentation skills, that the pit-falls Bill avoided, are still there, – for the unwary or the less well prepared, who may be lured into similar debates.

    • In reply to #53 by Agrajag:

      HERE

      This is the kind of stuff that literally brings tears to my eyes, meaning, it hurts my brain. A bad mind trip through Willy Wonka and the Woo-woo Factory.

      sounds like serious science

      calling occupants of interplanetary craft

    • In reply to #53 by Agrajag:

      Who knew? There’s a whole new world of incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo HERE. “Institute of Noetic Sciences”… nice acronym: “IONS”. Sounds like serious science to me. ;-)

      Presumably the proprietors are Anne Ions and Kat Ions – ☺ with electric shock therapy provided!

  27. I deeply hope that after this debate there was at least one creationist whose world was shaken to it’s foundations. One whom will never be so certain again. What Carl Sagan reminds us in the Demon Haunted World bares repeating here.
    “The human understanding is no dry light, but receives infusion from the will and affections; whence proceeds sciences which may be called “sciences as one would.” For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding” .

    1620 – Francis Bacon”

  28. I finally had the chance to watch this and Bill did very well. Like it or not, Bill Nye is a representative of the science community and many people identify with him and grew up watching him. He avoided attacking religion on a wide scale and stuck to dismantling these young-earth creationist fallacies. I know some here wanted more of an attack dog approach, but that’s not always the answer. While I hold no religious beliefs, I think there can be some kind of detente between the two.

Leave a Reply