Nye Hamm debate

[Twizelby]

I realize many members here are not from the States, but did you think that the Bill Nye and Ken Hamm debate was useful? He was criticized for even acknowledging the creation museum by participating in a debate, thus "lending credibility" but is it better to let the anti-science crowd remain or should they be sought out and confronted?

[Twizelby]

sorry *Ken Ham

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't know if the debate was useful or not.

Unlike some scientists, I don't like to make assumptions about this kind of thing, but instead rely on science.
I would need to see a rigorous attitudes and knowledge survey done before and after the debate, to see how the debate changed public perception.
Then I could favor one side or the other.

As far as I know, those surveys usually result in little to no change of opinion for the majority of viewers. That is to say, these things are usually a wash.

I think Nye was acting on faith in science that having this debate and bringing information to light would be good. At the same time, detractors are criticizing him on faith that this kind of thing legitimizes quacks.

Neither is on very solid grounds, where the evidence is concerned. Creationism is widely believed in the U.S., so the debate isn't likely to have legitimized something that wasn't already seen as dangerously legitimate (as it might for some more fringe groups). At the same time, it's hard to argue that Nye didn't positively contribute to Ham's career and personal clout (though maybe not creationism in general).

I don't necessarily believe that what's good for Ham is good for creationism. Ham getting rich off of all of this and bringing creationism into the public eye the way he is doing may be one of the things that is finally pulling it out of the shadows and eroding it (more from public ridicule, I suspect, than from events like the debate).

This is all speculation, though. I'm hard pressed to either condemn or congratulate Nye without evidence. And even if evidence came to light on the efficacy of these things, I hardly think Nye could be blamed or congratulated since he didn't have access to that evidence before hand (ultimately, he was just guessing).

I'm more concerned that Nye didn't do as good a job as he perhaps could have if he had been more familiar with Ham's arguments ahead of time. But that's probably aside from the point- it's always better to do a better job, whether or not the whole endeavor is at all useful.

but is it better to let the anti-science crowd remain or should they be sought out and confronted?

They should be ridiculed. That seems to be useful. Ridicule shames most people into conformity. Aside from this debate, Nye does ridicule creationism- although there may even be a place and time for that.

Whether actually taking them seriously enough to engage in debates like this is useful or harmful is not really determined as far as I know.

Creationism is failing in the public sphere, though. So, it's not like, no matter how successful or harmful this debate was, it's going to change the ultimate fate of the pseudoscience.

[TheVeganAtheist]

I think the more exposure the better. I can see the arguments for and against the debate, and while both are valid, I think the more exposure to reason people get, the better. It was through watching and listening to debates and shows like The Atheist Experience that helped me realize that a belief in a god was irrational.