Bill Nye, the science guy, debates Ken Ham, creationist museum CEO

The difference between science and religion in one picture.

Views: 364

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I heard Ken Ham got fried on the griddle.

From the reports I read, this went well.  I'm glad.  Better than I thought it would be.

I was interested in what some religious sources would say.

Christian Science Monitor really gave it to Nye.  Despite the name and origin, I often find Christian Science Monitor to be thoughtful and balanced.

As far as I could tell, Christian Post basically just said, the debate happened.  In a separate report from Christian Post, ""All Ham had to do was sit still for two-and-a-half hours, sound vaguely professional, and pander occasionally to his base. Sure, if you listened closely, what Ham was saying made absolutely no scientific sense. But debate is a format of impressions, not facts. Ham sounded like a reasonable human being, loosely speaking, and that's what mattered," the Daily Beast wrote on Wednesday.

"Nye, meanwhile, spent three-quarters of the debate sounding like a clueless geek, even if his points were scientifically valid. He went on strange asides and made awkward appeals to the obviously hostile audience, which he at one point referred to as 'my Kentucky friends.' He spent 10 minutes delivering a dry lecture on geological sediments and biogeography, using the kind of PowerPoint slides that a high school junior might make for his AP Biology class."  Which is a lot of handwaving, but says nothing.

Pat Robertson of all people called Ham a joke. 

FOX basically just said the debate happened.

This seems like more than damnation of Ham by faint praise.  More like damnation by no praise.

Pat Robertson, calling Ken Jam a joke, is like being criticized by Charles Manson for your lack of social skills at a Hollywood party.

Charles Manson had incredible social skills.  He was a cult leader. 

 damnation of Ham by faint praise

e.g. this:
Ham sounded like a reasonable human being, loosely speaking

:)

That paragraph about clueless geeks is exactly why scientists shouldn't debate creationists.

My daughter's artistic rendition of the debate:

Some have even went so far as to say that Ham "won" this debate! Not from what I saw. Bill Nye talks about evidence and Ham said his bible was all the evidence he needs! Where have we herard that one before?

Science asks questions that might never be answered;  religion preaches answers that may never be questioned.

 

(That isn't a completely original thought from me, but I think the way it's stated is)...I also like

 

Science lets us build airplanes, religion makes us fly them into buildings.

Ham was fighting straw men with non sequiturs.  It's almost comical how he redefines YEC as science and science as religion based on his faith that the Bible is the word of God.  What the hell is "historical" science?  I wish Nye had been up on that Australia reference.  Believers think that radiometric dating is a simple, cut and dried procedure, and they like to cite the "contradictory evidence" without telling the whole story, then insist that 90% of scientific dating methods support creationism.  A less polite person than I might say that Ham lied; I'm willing to think he's just stupid.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service