The Ham/Nye debate!

[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

[Manw� S�limo]

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

[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).

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

A supposition means to assume; a "pre" supposition means to assume beforehand. An online dictionary can readily supply you with the difference. As for the inductive vs. deductive part, that's the contention isn't it? Ham says the induction part isn't actually happening because hidden in the method are presuppositions which Nye sharply denies. I imagine you would do the same.

[KingsGambit]

Presupposition is not an exclusively YEC term, though its use in Christian circles is always probably going to be a little associated with them or with proponents of presuppositional apologetics. But I do find the concept behind the word to be rather useful. I've seen the term "horizon" used as well to denote a similar concept.

[Manw� S�limo]

A presup is what you get before marriage, right?

[One Bad Pig]

A presup is what you get before marriage, right?

Only in the minds of horny doofii.

[damanar]

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.

Nye does not think that "creationism means that you're incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way." His point is that you cannot use creationism to contribute to science. All of the YEC scientists Ham brought on used science to discover what they did, and not creationism. You cannot use the Bible and figure out how x-rays work. Creationism provides no predictable results, if a deity can change things at its whim instead of natural laws that we can follow to consistent results.

[Juvenal]

A supposition means to assume; a "pre" supposition means to assume beforehand.

I'm supposing there's not a lot of supposing after the fact.

Cause, ya know, that'd be called delusioning, or something like that, I suppose.

[Jedidiah]

It is hard for me to respect Nye for taking on Ham. He should know that Ham has no interest and no real understanding of what science is all about.

[seanD]

The MSM (I think it was cnn) just recently had Nye debate a congresswoman about AGW. I'm thinking, out of all the skeptics he could have debated with an authority on the subject and they pick a congresswoman?