The Ham/Nye debate!

[klaus54]

YECs are fond of the term "presupposition". Is there a difference between a presupposition and a supposition? Just curious.

And speaking of Ham, his supposition is that his Genesis 1 interpretation is correct, infallible if you will. Thus, no amount of physical evidence will sway him. Ergo, "debate" with Ham is a futile endeavor and a fool's errand. Ham can toss a few sciencey morsels to the ignorant thrall to give the impression he's "winning" and then he and followers can walk away smugly with the "victory". A victory that was fixed from the get-go.

Addendum: Ham's type of supposition is antithetical to modern natural science with its inductive method. Ham's is in fact deductive with his supposition being his axiom.

[nico]

The most lasting image in the public's view so far seems to be the respective answers to the "What would make you change your mind?" question, with Nye answering "evidence" and Ham answering "nothing". 1 Corinthians 15:14 makes clear that even the resurrection is, in theory, falsifiable (I don't think it really can be falsified, obviously, since it really happened, but you get my point). Since Paul will even admit that, what does it say that Ham puts a non-essential belief up as non-falsifiable? This answer is rightly being mocked as foolish, and is not a good representation of Christianity as intellectually viable.

Ham says "nothing" because he already admitted his presuppositions that inform his worldview. Nye says "evidence" because he believes he has no presuppositions at all. Of course, the evidence he has in mind must readily conform to his worldview, but as a committed modernist who believes himself perfectly objective he has no worldview, only "reason", so anything that doesn't conform to the presuppositions he won't admit to is not considered real evidence. This biggest problem with guys like Nye is their inability to grasp their own philosophical underpinnings.

[nico]

What led Nye to choose Ham (if that's the case) to have this debate with? Is there any background info that placed these two together.

It all started when Bill Nye made some very uninformed remarks about parents teaching their children creationism. You can watch it on youtube. Ken Ham responded likewise in video format. You can watch that one on youtube as well. Anyway, the conflict between them snowballed, made a few headlines, and culminated in this debate. The topic of the debate was about whether or not creationism is a "viable" scientific theory. Essentially, Nye thinks that creationism means that you're incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way. He says that you won't be able to create vaccines, invent machines, or understand technology at all. Honestly, he is very, very uninformed about creationism and has a very distorted view of what entails from a Biblical worldview.

[princesa]

Craig doesn't argue against evolution, and Nye's main point was to defend evolution in the public's eyes (because it is the main scientific concept that the public tends to have problems accepting). Nye wouldn't be interested in publicly going against Christianity by itself (and the other night he did allude to the fact that plenty of people do reconcile evolution with their faith).

this makes more sense thanks

[KingsGambit]

I see, I don't know why but just thought Nye would want to debate a William Lane craig type apologetic

Craig doesn't argue against evolution, and Nye's main point was to defend evolution in the public's eyes (because it is the main scientific concept that the public tends to have problems accepting). Nye wouldn't be interested in publicly going against Christianity by itself (and the other night he did allude to the fact that plenty of people do reconcile evolution with their faith).

[Manwë Súlimo]

You're assuming people are wanting an actual debate of ideas instead of a theatrical event of sound bites.

[princesa]

They're two very popular figureheads at what they do. Ham for YEC and Nye for popular science (especially since he was shown extensively in the classrooms I attended).

I see, I don't know why but just thought Nye would want to debate a William Lane craig type apologetic

[KingsGambit]

Apparently Nye is on Dancing With The Stars too.

[Darth Executor]

I dunno about Ham but Nye is a washed up has-been trying to jump start his long dead career. I guess he saw how popular Dawkins got and wanted a sweet piece of the rabidtheist pie.

[Manwë Súlimo]

What led Nye to choose Ham (if that's the case) to have this debate with? Is there any background info that placed these two together.

They're two very popular figureheads at what they do. Ham for YEC and Nye for popular science (especially since he was shown extensively in the classrooms I attended).

[Manwë Súlimo]

Didn't watch it.

[princesa]

What led Nye to choose Ham (if that's the case) to have this debate with? Is there any background info that placed these two together.

[Chaotic Void]

Yeah, even a lot of my YEC friends thought this debate was a joke... I watched it yesterday on YT. Much more convenient when you need to hammer notes and/or take a leak.

My biggest problem with Ham was the fact that- like KG said- he said nothing would change his mind about the Age of the Earth and the Origin of Species. Another one to tack on is the fact that he kept citing scripture to back up his point (especially since Nye- and probably a chunk of the audience- obviously doesn't adhere to Scripture as an Authority), instead of providing scientific evidence to show the tenability of his model (which is, you know, kind of the point of the debate and something that Nye holds as authoritative). I do have to give him credit, though, for pointing out some legitimate scientists who are also YEC, yet have made contributions to the scientific community (which, IIRC, was something that Bill was trying to say isn't possible).

Don't get me wrong... Nye had some problems of his own. For one, he came off as Chronologically snobbish with regards to the story of Noah. Another problem is that he seemed incredibly naive about how science and scientists can function (they're not immune to internal/external politics and 'going where the grants are'). I was also just about ready to slap him through the computer monitor when he used the 'Telephone' game with regards to the authority of scripture (very unscientific of him, to say the least).

All in all... I probably should have taken a bracing shot of something before I watched it.

[RBerman]

The debaters really needed to be given a period where they were allowed to directly ask questions of the other debater. The were a number of questions that both of them asked the other, but neither were given the opportunity to answer them.

I agree; lack of actual debate is a failing in many modern "debates" which are really just traded prepared speeches. But speakers know that their prepared remarks will generally be more eloquent than their extemporaneous ones, so everybody sticks carefully to scripts.

[RBerman]

I would have intentionally missed that debate. But missed it instead by default. Am also ignoring "accounts of."

Alrighty then! Thanks for contributing.