Bill Nye vs Creationism

Carpe Mortem

Benevolently Batshit
Aug 21, 2013
3,745
1,330
113
As much as I love Bill Nye, and as obviously as he destroyed the opposition, a debate can't be had between religion and science. Its just apples and oranges, one relies on established logical parameters and the other on faith, on the belief that even without scientific evidence something is totally plausible.

And in a way, he was wasting his time and being a dick by engaging the man. Should have turned it down.
 
I was watching it with my girlfriend last night, and she said basically the same thing. A number of people in the science community said the same thing as well. However, my opinion was I'm glad he did it. There's a chance some people in the room may have never had a scientist explain these concepts to them before (even though he's technically a mechanical engineer). There may have been kids or folks who sit on curriculum committees. At one point there were over 500,000 viewers on youtube watching the livestream. If he changed or at least planted a seed of skepticism inside one brain, then it was worth the cause in my opinion.

I do, however, feel like the debate should have been elsewhere. The Creation Museum has been hurting for money lately, and this was a huge publicity stunt, so it's a win for Ken Ham and his folks in that regard
 
As Dawkins warned, condescending to debate creationists will only lend them credibility by allowing them to demonstrate just how sophistically nuanced their crackpot bullshit really is. It fooled a lot of people I'm sure. But 99% of those watching were already entrenched in their convictions on either side, so it really made no difference.
 
Fucking dumbass religious people need to gtfo. The world would be a better place without them.
 
Two idiots bloviating.

"Dumbass religious people" aren't any worse than any other sort of dumbass - which includes most everyone in some way.
 
They generally are worse, actually. Normal dumbasses that aren't fueled by ideology are a lot less problematic.
 
Mathiäs;10792642 said:
They generally are worse, actually. Normal dumbasses that aren't fueled by ideology are a lot less problematic.

I'm interested to know who all these people are that aren't fueled by ideologies.
 
I also thought the main question of the debate was an important one. I forget what it said, but it was something to the effect of, "Is creationism a viable model for teaching students about the origins of life?" Something to that effect. The question wasn't, "Is creationism or evolution better?" And I was particularly impressed with Nye repeating the fact that we, America, need to remain scientifically relevant in order to compete on the global scale. He appealed to the patriotic sense which I suppose countered Ham's constant appeals to "authority" (one of his authorities having attended Billy Graham's Liberty College) and frequent red herrings and straw men.
 
It has to do with what people consider evidence.

Science and evolutionary theory rely upon observable evidence. Creationists rely upon the Bible. Unfortunately, one set of criteria offers more verifiable validity than the other.
 
All I have to say, after seeing Bill Nye victory over the creationist is:

107.jpg
 
Of course, I'm sure creationists believe Nye got wrecked. Like Zeph said, pretty much anyone who knew about and was interested enough to watch already had their mind made up.
 
I'm glad he did the debate and I enjoyed watching it. Like someone just said, some of the people in the crowd or watching probably never had someone point out the scientific facts behind evolution. Was anyone swayed one way or another on the spot? No. But, it doesn't hurt to show these people the actual facts. A seed, when planted doesn't flourish right away.
 
Nye devoted his public career to making science intelligible to a broader audience, but even he couldn't dumb it down enough to appeal to or make sense to the type of people who would take young-earth creationism seriously.
 
What worries me is how many totally dumb (like the kind of people who's day to day lives involve getting tasered by the police to break up a domestic and who have sports club tattoos) I know who are totally irreligious. There was a general cultural movement away from Christianity in Europe and it shows in the statistics. It doesn't mean people who are uneducated and generally gullible and lack structure or critical thought in their lives might be convinced by some big budget religious marketing at some point down the line. These people might become Wahhabis or something. It's worrying. If your idea of Western culture is burgers and porn, you might easily be convinced by some big jizz fest of Edward Said-ientalism, the noble savage and an exaggerated Ad hominem, Us and Them style response to the reactionary right.
 
Nye devoted his public career to making science intelligible to a broader audience, but even he couldn't dumb it down enough to appeal to or make sense to the type of people who would take young-earth creationism seriously.

I wouldn't critize young-earth creationists that hard. Yes, many of them are willfully ingnorant, but many of them have only been exposed to 1 viewpoint in their whole life. I think this debate could have been helpful to those people. Even if one of them questions that viewpoint they've been taught their whole life for a second, or begins to doubt it a little, progress has been made.

You just have to hope they pursue it.
 
The theory of evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.

ITT Mathias makes an ass of himself.
 
Even though I grew up and remain pretty atheistic, I don't hate the religious. Life is tough, dude. If it helps to believe there's a light at the end of the tunnel more power to ya, but NEVER claim you have scientific proof. And never discuss your faith shit with me.