Quick Thoughts on the Nye/Ham Debate
YouTube Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate (you can skip through the 13 minute countdown)
Bill Nye, unfortunately, is a nice guy willing to accept the ideal of (I think the term is) "non-overlapping magesterium." Even Dawkins would have been slightly deferential. What was needed there was a bulldog who gives no quarter. A Hitchens. Matt Dillahunty would have done better. Hitchens is dead, and neither would have been invited. Sam Harris or Micheal Shermer would have been better. Ham would never have agreed though.
All said, Nye did fine in the limits of who he is and the format. I doubt there were any minds moved at all, though.
And I wasn't comfortable at all with Nye's main point, that the good ol' USA needs to stay on top. Science and human knowledge and progress is not, or should not, be about nationalism, or patriotism. That was a waste of time. And points.
There were too many untrue assertions left without retort stinking up the air...A better debater, like those I mentioned above would have cleared those up.
I wish Nye was more succinct. His points were understandable to those of us who knew what he meant, but he tended to ramble too much, whereas Ham machine gunned his lies out there. It's the nature of a scientist to use that kind of caution, where a good debater would know how to attack.
All told, this was a win for Ham, in that he got to advertize his "museum", and fired off such a cloud of bullshit that his followers would remain flummoxed and very few would learn anything. This was not a good idea.
I applaud Nye's attempt, but he was not the right guy for the time and place.
Of course, I could be wrong:
Bill Nye takes victory lap on The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/bill-nyes-debate-victory-lap-137819203791
And most (non-fundamentalist, real) people seem to disagree with me. Such is the world of opinions...Online polls (for what they're worth) give Nye a decisive win. I would rethink my position on this, but the proof would lie in whether the "museum" at the heart of this debate gained visitors and revenue after, and as a result of, this show.
Matt Dillahunty gives his take on the Nye/Ham debate.
I think he agrees with me, sort of. He's happier about the outcome and perception than I would be...But he points out (as I thought he would) some of the missed opportunities. I stand by it, Matt would have done better in this format.
Okay. I'm wrong. Even Pat Robertson thinks Ham is a lunatic. Bat-shit crazy has its limitations.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/02/pat-robertson-rejects-young-earth-creationism-attacks-ken-ham/
The Daily Beast agrees with me:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/the-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-was-a-nightmare-for-science.html
This story still has "legs". Of course, Ham would have to answer to Pat Robertson. It's a not-so-subtle bid for both of them to grab some publicity while the issue is hot. A reckless and feckless attempt to try to seem still relevant:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ken-ham-strikes-back-after-pat-robertsons-creationism-diss
Hemant Mehta, The Friendly Atheist changes his mind. I agree. But we still have to see if Ham won any publicity and gets more money/visitors to his "museum".
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/02/12/should-scientists-debate-creationists-ive-changed-my-mind/
Note. The fundies really don't want you to add your two cents. Proof? Right here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/02/15/keep-the-conversation-going-just-not-here/
Bill Nye, unfortunately, is a nice guy willing to accept the ideal of (I think the term is) "non-overlapping magesterium." Even Dawkins would have been slightly deferential. What was needed there was a bulldog who gives no quarter. A Hitchens. Matt Dillahunty would have done better. Hitchens is dead, and neither would have been invited. Sam Harris or Micheal Shermer would have been better. Ham would never have agreed though.
All said, Nye did fine in the limits of who he is and the format. I doubt there were any minds moved at all, though.
And I wasn't comfortable at all with Nye's main point, that the good ol' USA needs to stay on top. Science and human knowledge and progress is not, or should not, be about nationalism, or patriotism. That was a waste of time. And points.
There were too many untrue assertions left without retort stinking up the air...A better debater, like those I mentioned above would have cleared those up.
I wish Nye was more succinct. His points were understandable to those of us who knew what he meant, but he tended to ramble too much, whereas Ham machine gunned his lies out there. It's the nature of a scientist to use that kind of caution, where a good debater would know how to attack.
All told, this was a win for Ham, in that he got to advertize his "museum", and fired off such a cloud of bullshit that his followers would remain flummoxed and very few would learn anything. This was not a good idea.
I applaud Nye's attempt, but he was not the right guy for the time and place.
Of course, I could be wrong:
Bill Nye takes victory lap on The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/bill-nyes-debate-victory-lap-137819203791
And most (non-fundamentalist, real) people seem to disagree with me. Such is the world of opinions...Online polls (for what they're worth) give Nye a decisive win. I would rethink my position on this, but the proof would lie in whether the "museum" at the heart of this debate gained visitors and revenue after, and as a result of, this show.
Matt Dillahunty gives his take on the Nye/Ham debate.
I think he agrees with me, sort of. He's happier about the outcome and perception than I would be...But he points out (as I thought he would) some of the missed opportunities. I stand by it, Matt would have done better in this format.
Okay. I'm wrong. Even Pat Robertson thinks Ham is a lunatic. Bat-shit crazy has its limitations.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/02/pat-robertson-rejects-young-earth-creationism-attacks-ken-ham/
The Daily Beast agrees with me:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/the-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-was-a-nightmare-for-science.html
This story still has "legs". Of course, Ham would have to answer to Pat Robertson. It's a not-so-subtle bid for both of them to grab some publicity while the issue is hot. A reckless and feckless attempt to try to seem still relevant:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ken-ham-strikes-back-after-pat-robertsons-creationism-diss
Hemant Mehta, The Friendly Atheist changes his mind. I agree. But we still have to see if Ham won any publicity and gets more money/visitors to his "museum".
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/02/12/should-scientists-debate-creationists-ive-changed-my-mind/
Note. The fundies really don't want you to add your two cents. Proof? Right here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/02/15/keep-the-conversation-going-just-not-here/
Comments