Bill Nye’s upcoming debate earns $$ for creationist organizations

January 17, 2014 • 12:43 pm

Here’s yet another reason why Bill Nye shouldn’t be debating creationism with Ken Ham.

Reader Chris called my attention to the fact that the upcoming debate at Kentucky’s Creation Museum is being touted not only by Answers in Genesis, Ham’s organization, but by Kent Hovind’s separate creationist organization Creation Today.  Here’s a screenshot of the email that Chris just got from Hovind’s group (he subscribes for fun):

Bill Nye

And over at the Creation Store at Creation Today, you can preorder the DVD for only $20:

Picture 1

Note: As it says above, “The proceeds for these preorders of DVD’s [sic] and Digital Downloads will go to support Answers in Genesis. . . ” In other words, Nye’s appearance will be giving money to organizations who try to subvert the mission Nye has had all his life: science education, particularly of kids.  And you know what? I don’t even care if Nye mops the floor with Ham. Though that would be great (especially because the DVD promises to be “uncensored”), it doesn’t justify Nye making money to further Ham’s program of lying about science.  That would be, to paraphrase a sign we always see in construction zones: “A temporary victory, a permanent defeat.”

Nye may be great at what he does, but in this case he made a severe misstep, and, at least in this case, he’s not very media-savvy.

Put it this way: would you debate a creationist if the profits from sale of debate-related media all went to further creationism?

As a friend once told me who was about to debate a feminist about gender differences: “You show up, you lose.”

Sean Carroll to debate William Lane Craig

January 13, 2014 • 11:19 am

Let the sparks fly: Official Website Physicist™ Sean Carroll will debate theologian William Lane Craig at a “Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in Faith and Culture”. According to the website, these forums are an ongoing program of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and are “designed to provide a venue in which respected scholars of differing opinions dialogue on critical issues in religion, science, philosophy, and/or culture from their differing perspectives.”

Here is the topic and the dates:

Screen shot 2014-01-13 at 1.43.24 AM

As you see, it’s a two-day event, with the schedule here. It’s a bit wonky, since that page lists both the 21st and 22nd as “Saturdays” (the 21st is a Friday), but the formal debate will apparently take place at 7 pm on Friday, with academic papers by Carroll and Craig presented (in a chapel!) on Saturday morning and afternoon.

You can register here: the fee for regular folks is $20, but minister and students get a $10 discount. More privilege for religion!

Well, if someone has to do this, I’m glad it’s Sean, who’w written extensively about how cosmology provides no evidence for God (see the nice essay here, for example).

And I’m also glad it’s about physics, for Sean knows his onions about it, and is also a good extemporaneous speaker. (I wonder if Craig will bring up the the Kalām “Cosmological” Argument.) I also know that Carroll’s savvy enough to realize that Craig has a team of people meticulously researching everything Sean’s ever said, and I trust that Carroll will perform his own due diligence.

Although I don’t approve of debates as ways to settle issues like the fact of evolution or God’s non-existence, I’m not nearly as worried about Carroll—despite Craig’s formidable debating skills—as I am about Bill Nye.

If you’re lucky enough to be in New Orleans, I’d suggest going. It promises to be a good show for $20—so long as the speakers don’t read their papers on Saturday. (Gratuitious gripe: Why do some academics, especially in the humanities, insist on standing in front of an audience and reading from their manuscript? Do they know that the academic written word is deadly dull, and differs from the spoken word? Do they realize that they could just distribute the manuscript, or put it online, and save everyone the trouble of being bored? There is simply no excuse for an academic reading a paper in public.)

h/t: darelle

Bill Nye talks about his upcoming debate with Ken Ham

January 8, 2014 • 7:40 am

A few days ago Bill “The Science Guy” Nye appeared on the Cable News Network discussing his upcoming debate (Feb. 4) with Ken Ham at Kentucky’s Creation Museum. The topic: “Is creation a viable model of origins?”

Here’s the clip from CNN:

Nye’s rationale, as given in this interview, is not to “win,” nor to change “this guy’s mind” (I love that he refuses to mention Ken Ham’s name), but to prevent children from adopting a “scientifically illiterate” view of biology.  He adds he hopes to “influence people in the area”—presumably Kentucky.

If that’s the case, I reiterate that this debate is pointless and counterproductive. The audience is not going to comprise children, but (as Nye admits) mostly fundamentalist adults—Ham supporters. How, then, can this change the minds of the younger generation? And if the audience does consist of Ham supporters, how can Nye influence the thinking of Kentuckians? If Nye makes a good showing, which I hope but consider unlikely, then Ham may not release a video.

If Nye wants to further acceptance of evolution, he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists. By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform.

Further, even in this friendly interview Nye doesn’t respond well to the criticism that he’s not really an expert on evolution, nor does he seem especially eloquent.

I suspect that Ham, in a William Lane Craig-like way, is preparing furiously for this debate, and I pray* that Nye is doing likewise. That’s the only way he’ll survive.

Some readers have suggested that this debate is a very good thing, but I simply can’t agree. I suspect that such optimism stems from their respect for Nye’s accomplishment as a science presenter, and his demeanor as a nice guy.  But Nye never had Ken Ham on his children’s show.

And I can’t shake the feeling that part of Nye’s motivation is to stay in the media spotlight. But doing it this way is a terrible mistake.

_______________
*I am praying metaphorically

This may not end well

January 3, 2014 • 6:53 am

On February 4, Bill Nye the “Science Guy,” will debate creationist Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. (The link gives details.) The topic is “Is creation a viable model of origins?”, and admission is $25. That’s a lot of dough!

My worries are these. First, Nye is likely helping fund the Creation Museum. Had I been Nye, I would have suggested some other recipient of the money. Not only that, but why hold such debates in a Temple of Ignorance instead of on neutral ground?

Second, Nye is giving special credibility to Ham. After all, The Science Guy is known and beloved by many Americans as a popularizer of science. Why debase himself this way?

My third worry, then, is this will look great on Ham’s c.v., but not so much on Nye’s. It is my practice not to debate creationists for reasons #2 and #3. Nye can attack creationism on his own, as he has been doing with great effectiveness. Debates are not the way to help people accept evolution.

Finally, does Nye have experience in debating creationists? It is almost entirely an exercise in rhetoric, not a search for truth, and is Nye prepared to deal with the “Gish Gallop”?

Screen shot 2014-01-03 at 4.20.39 AM

Finally, there’s no doubt that Ham will try to pack the house with his fellow creationists. To that end, I urge my friends in Kentucky, particularly those at the nearby University of Kentucky, to show up to support real science, despite the ridiculous $25 admission fee.

h/t: Ben Goren

A paleontologist debates an IDer on the Cambrian Explosion

December 2, 2013 • 9:35 am

Charles Marshall, a paleontologist and expert on early life at the University of California at Berkeley, recently debated intelligent-design advocate Stephen Meyer on the Cambrian Explosion, the topic of Meyer’s recent book, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin for Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. I haven’t yet listened to the hour-long debate, but I will, and readers interested in ID and paleontology should as well.

I confess that I had an small hand in this: when Meyer’s book came out, arguing that the suddenness of the Cambrian “Explosion” (it actually took at least ten million years), accompanied by the origin of several new body plans, was evidence for intelligent design, I wanted to see his argument addressed by scientific experts. I called it to the attention of several early-life paleobiologists, hoping that they’d review the book. Only one of them, Charles, took the bait, but he produced a great review, and in an important journal (Science). You can read Marshall’s negative review here, for free. And that review led to this debate.

The debate, of course, was conducted on a Christian station, Premier, a station in the UK, and on the “Unbelievable?” show hosted by Justin Brierley. You can go to the show’s website here and access the Meyer/Marshall debate by clicking on “click here to listen now,” or, better yet (since that way can crash your browser) listen to or download an MP3 of the show here.

Since I haven’t heard this yet, and many readers won’t, put your take on the debate below if you’ve listened to it.

I wish more paleobiologists would have a look at Meyer’s book. Not that he’ll listen to their critiques, for he and his Discovery Institute cronies aren’t interested in scientific argument, and always find a way to discredit the several negative reviews.  And although it’s annoying to take time out of one’s science to debunk ID, having a paper record against its arguments is valuable. Paleobiologists should, for instance, note that if you look on the Amazon rankings under “organic evolution,” you’ll find this:

Picture 3It’s a travesty that a religiously-motivated book is #1. That ranking doesn’t reflect its scientific or literary quality, of course: it reflects America’s extreme religiosity and the fact that Meyer’s book adds to religious Americans’ confirmation bias.

In the more sensible and less religious UK, Meyer’s book isn’t even listed under “evolution” (or at least doesn’t appear in the top 80), and is #42 in paleontology.

Discussion on Islam TONIGHT featuring Ayaan Hirsi Ali

November 16, 2013 • 3:38 pm

If you’re not busy tonight, listen to a one-hour livestreamed video discussion at the Richmond Forum about whether Islam is dangerous or innocuous. It starts at 8 p.m. EST in the US, 5 hours earlier than British time; and it’s the first in a series of discussions of Islam that will feature, in later shows Gordon Brown, Steve Martin and George W. Bush.  (Watch at the link above.)

The Richmond Times-Dispatch notes:

The kickoff November discussion is titled “Islam: A Religion of Violence or Peace?”

It will feature Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an internationally known critic of Islam; Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf, a Muslim leader who argues Islam preaches tolerance; and Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamic extremist who promotes democracy in the Muslim world.

The panel is billed as the first time “any spiritual leader has taken the stage with Ali to counter her charges against Islam.”

Bill Chapman, executive director of The Richmond Forum, said the panel was set up because Islam “was our most requested program topic on our subscriber survey last fall.”

Inagist gives a bit more information:

Watch The Richmond Forum’s Richmond Forum – Islam: A Religion of Violence or Peace? on Livestream.com. One of the most compelling conversations of our age will take place on the Richmond Forum stage as we bring three noted voices together for the first time to tackle the question: Is Islam a religion of violence or peace? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim and the author of “Infidel,” speaks and writes widely about what she believes is the inherently violent nature of Islam and its subjugation and abuse of women. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, an American Muslim spiritual leader, acclaimed author, and one of the most influential Muslim voices of moderation, holds the position that Islam is a bedrock of tolerance. Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamic extremist and the author of “Radical,” spent four years in an Egyptian prison and today works to challenge extremism and promote democracy in the Muslim world. Among the most requested topics by our subscribers, this promises to be a powerful and enlight

h/t: Diane G.

Yesterday’s debate between Dawkins and Chopra

November 10, 2013 • 9:50 am

I forgot to post about yesterday’s live-streamed debate between Richard Dawkins and Deepak “Quantum” Chopra at the Ciudad de las Ideas conference in Puebla, Mexico. Fortunately, it’s now been put on YouTube, and I’ve embedded it below.

The first five minutes are plenty weird (and superfluous), with a bunch of harlequins and pirates prancing about onstage. WHY? Then Dawkins, Chopra, and moderator (and organizer) Andrés Roemer enter through a picture frame. Andrés introduces them in Spanish at length. If you don’t speak Spanish and want to skip the pyrotechnics and introduction, the English part starts at 13:10.

There’s roughly an hour of discussion, and I must confess that I haven’t had time to watch it. I’ve listened to bits, and it’s the usual Chopra blathering. At about 26 minutes in, The Deepak goes on about the purpose of evolution being the “production of maximum diversity” for “that is what we see.” I suppose the purpose of tsunamis is death, then, for “that is what we see”. Deepak needs to learn the difference between “purpose” and “effect”! Richard calls him out for using a “word salad” of scientific terms that Chopra doesn’t understand.

Okay, I have to stop watching this and get to work.

For those of you who do watch it (or saw it live-streamed yesterday), weigh in below.

Chopra is an intensely irritating man, and willfully stupid—indeed, duplicitous—because his errors have been pointed out to him many times.  Of course he has a right to blather as much as he wants, but thank Ceiling Cat that people like Dawkins, Shermer, and Harris call him out for his obscurantism.  Of course some of you may feel that such debates are pointless, and I’m on the fence about that.