Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Resources for the Nye Ham debate tonight – also, plea to ID types: Be realistic

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Improved no2 Wagon.jpg
Cretors/popcorn maker

Here’s all but the snacks. Bring your own.

Bill Nye the science guy vs. Ken Ham the Genesis slam here at 7:00 pm EST. You can always drag the progress bar back if you arrive late.

Meanwhile, here’s the promo vid.

CNN’s Tom Foreman’s the moderator:

During key primary and caucus nights of the 2012 election cycle, Foreman conducted discussions with focus groups in key battleground states, and he lead the network’s fact checking initiative, for which he and his team were awarded the 2013 Walter Cronkite/Brooks Jackson Award.

Geek Goes Rogue is live blogging the debate.
Nye’s shoutout to fans:

Tuesday’s debate will be about whether Ham’s creation model is viable or useful for describing nature. We cannot use his model to predict the outcome of any experiment, design a tool, cure a disease or describe natural phenomena with mathematics.

These are all things that parents in the United States very much want their children to be able to do; everyone wants his or her kids to have common sense, to be able to reason clearly and to be able to succeed in the world.

The facts and process of science have enabled the United States to lead the world in technology and provide good health for an unprecedented number of our citizens. Science fuels our economy. Without it, our economic engine will slow and eventually stop.

Ham’s shoutout to fans:

Even though the two of us are not Ph.D. scientists, Mr. Nye and I clearly love science.

As a former science instructor, I have appreciated the useful television programs that he hosted and produced, especially when he practiced operational science in front of his audience.

He and I both recognize the wonderful benefits that observational, operational science has brought us, from cell phones to space shuttles. But operational science, which builds today’s technology, is not the same as presenting beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory.

For students, the evolution-creation discussion can be a useful exercise, for it can help develop their critical thinking skills.

Note: CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live” will host both Nye and Ham at 9 p.m. post-debate.

“also, plea to ID types: Be realistic”?: “Mainly ID” types like Steve Meyer are concerned that the media whoopfest will detract from science issues around design and information theory vs. Darwinism and materialism.

Fair enough, that’s a risk.

But would Meyer even have been quoted in a legacy outfit like NBC if all he has to offer is genuine knowledge of the Cambrian explosion? Far from it, NBC is probably hoping for fistfights in the stands, a shooting, an altar call, miracle claims, an exorcism, and a police raid, with criminal charges and big lawsuits to follow.

Even so: How many NBC viewers would know about Meyer, the Cambrian explosion, or Darwin’s Doubt but for this event? As a result of ambulance chasing, NBC ended up having to mention Meyer.

Hey, the breaks. If fifteen people start reading and thinking as a result of that, guys like Meyer will be better off. And it won’t have cost them anything but anxiety.

Again, you can watch the debate free online here.

Comments
I also like the fact that Ken Ham showed that one does not have to be an atheist or evolutionist to do great science. I wish Ham would reconsider his stance on young earth because he seems too intelligent to really believe in this nonsense. It would serve Ham a world of good to research the basis of his interpretation as carefully and diligently as he goes about trying to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old. I guess when one's career and livelihood depend on repeated doctrine and dogma, there's no point in changing it. Sad.Mapou
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Goodness grief, could you imagine how much worse it would have been for Nye had he stepped in the ring with Dr. Craig or Dr. Meyers? They would have taken him apart the moment he mentioned the Big Bang.
I agree. However, young earth creationism is a complete joke, both Biblically and scientifically speaking, and this is the reason that Bill Nye chose to debate a YEC like Ken Ham. Nye made it his primary goal in the debate to keep attacking Ham's young earth interpretation of Genesis and he did an excellent job, IMO. Ham, for his part, showed that species vary over the years but they stay within their kinds and he, too, did an excellent job. Having said that, someone like Stephen Meyer would have torn Nye a new orifice because Nye's age-of-the-earth talking points would have been useless and pointless against Meyer.Mapou
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Goodness grief, could you imagine how much worse it would have been for Nye had he stepped in the ring with Dr. Craig or Dr. Meyers? They would have taken him apart the moment he mentioned the Big Bang. Shoot even some Christians can make far better atheistic arguments than he did: The Atheist Challenge - Sean McDowell, PhD - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNql36qIExAbornagain77
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
OK. I have a new found respect for both Mr. Nye and Mr. Ham. That being said, I think they are both fundamentally wrong. Mr. Ham refuses to admit that his interpretation of the Bible could be wrong and Mr. Nye believes that science cannot answer any question about God. In other words, the debate was interesting but, in the end, we learned nothing new.Mapou
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Oh boy, the good ol’ “the energy comes from the sun” answer for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics problem (his summary of which, by the way, was pretty bad…I wonder if that was intentional)
Right!? I thought I was watching SNL for a minute there. He looked completely inept.TSErik
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
David Klinghoffer over on ENV is a little upset that this is a debate between two viewpoints that start with presuppositions, and fit the science to match, as opposed to the ID approach which “[follows] the evidence where it leads”.
Oh I certainly agree. Ham, while I'm sure quite competent has made certain missteps. Though, it appears reactionary to Nye's attacking of The Bible. I simply would have preferred less bloviating from both parties and more scientific discussion. Nye's points were a joke for someone considered a public science personality, however Ham's remarks weren't all satisfactory. There's nothing I hate more, and I am a Christian, than when someone responds to a criticism with, "It says in The Bible!" The debate became about the age of the Earth, rather than on evolution's place as a scientific theory worth teaching. I guess I could be an agnostic when it comes to the Earth's age with leanings of OEC. I should say, I tend to accept the old-age model, however adequate evidence could change my mind. What that is? I dunno. But I guess I'll know it when I see it. That being said, I would be Ham's choir to which he was preaching, and even I found his argument as a whole wanting. He certainly came out on top over Nye, but only because Nye's showing was absolutely dreadful.TSErik
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Here is the paper Ham presented in his first presentation: Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of Dogs - 2014 Excerpt Discussion: We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations (Figures 4–5, Table S10),, Our analysis suggests that none of the sampled wolf populations is more closely related to dogs than any of the others, and that dogs diverged from wolves at about the same time that the sampled wolf populations diverged from each other (Figures 5A, 5C). http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016bornagain77
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Oh boy, the good ol' "the energy comes from the sun" answer for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics problem (his summary of which, by the way, was pretty bad...I wonder if that was intentional)Berceuse
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
David Klinghoffer over on ENV is a little upset that this is a debate between two viewpoints that start with presuppositions, and fit the science to match, as opposed to the ID approach which "[follows] the evidence where it leads". Unfortunately, this lack of commitment to any particular all-encompassing story is the very reason why evolutionists (or creationists, for that matter, although there is less motivation to do so there) refuse to debate ID-ists - ID makes very few claims beyond stating that evolution is wrong. What is an evolutionist to respond with - "no, we aren't wrong"? What is the potential victory proposition for the evolutionist? I'd love to see an evolutionist/IDist debate, because I'd like to see all evolution's ugly flaws exposed, but I can understand why an evolutionist would not find the idea of spending an entire game on defense very appealing.drc466
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
I think Nye is missing the point here when posed with the question "how does consciousness come from matter?" You can give an answer such as "that's the great mystery! we don't know, but it's the hope of discovery that drives us!", but it ignores the metaphysical assumption: that consciousness must arrive from matter, and the implications that has if it were trueBerceuse
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
It’s bothering me how Nye is co-opting the importance of science and engineers as a whole (which is true) to legitimize the evolutionary paradigm.
I agree. Nye is constantly appealing to emotion (and at times by way of patriotism which is frustrating as it spits in the face of actual patriotism) to dodge questions.TSErik
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
It's bothering me how Nye is co-opting the importance of science and engineers as a whole (which is true) to legitimize the evolutionary paradigm. "Engineers make things and solve problems." Yes, that's true. And how does evolutionary thought encourage/improve this?Berceuse
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
LOL. Nye's rebuttal is just HILARIOUS! "Are fish sinners? ...Because light and junk! You're looking into the past! So you can observe the past!" How does that apply to Ham's comment? His comments are naive at best. He's making little sense, aside from his insults.TSErik
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
It's a good thing Nye uses the phrase "Ken Ham's creation model". I am a creationist but I am not a YEC and I certainly do not subscribe to Ham's creation model. I do admit that Ham comes across as a good speaker though.Mapou
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Just got in on the debate. Nye is really arguing distant starlight? All Ken Ham has to do is talk about the fossil record and DNA. Maybe throw in the probability of creating a single protein under Nye's scenario and Ken will win. Has Nye said "God of the gaps" yet? Haha.julianbre
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
So far Nye sounds like a Reddit atheist troll, not a scientist. Granted, Nye isn't a scientist.TSErik
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Watching live: Wow. I'm enjoying Nye's opening presentation... he has apparently not read the creationist literature, and this demonstrates this is all that they've got. It's as if he's setting arguments on tee's for Ham to knock out of the park.JGuy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
I'm not watching the debate, but Nye seems to have blundered badly if the OP is anything to go by. Talking about the importance of science when it comes to American success? If that's his strategy against Ham, and Ham is sharp - which he sounds to be given the comments - Ham will eviscerate him. He simply has to A) point out the creationist scientists of present and past, and B) ask what useful science evolutionary theory has provided. Considering Ham's problem isn't with things like 'bacterial resistance' but things like common descent, Nye would be choked if he walks that route. But I suppose we'll see.nullasalus
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
I must say, Ham is fairly impressive, much more so than I was expecting. He's hitting on all the points anyone who's ever dealt with Darwinists has faced. Nye? Not so much. First, he attacks the concept of historical science, yet goes on to describe a method of science which is precisely what historical science is (indirectly inferring past events based on present evidence). Clearly, Mr. Science Guy doesn't know what the term historical science means. Secondly, he's making far too extreme of a claim in saying that people who believe in young Earth creationism can't do valid science. Ken Ham absolutely destroyed him on this by showing scientists, several orders of magnitude more accomplished than Nye (who's a pop scientist, nothing more), who found great success working from the young-Earth-creationist mindset. Bill Nye needs to stick to his echo chambers and TV shows. He's not smart enough for an open dialogueJammer
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Not to flex my bias, but it does Ham seems to have invoked a very clever strategy using video's of actual creationist scientists that have contributed to real science and technology. It will be difficult for Nye to explain how those creationist scientists don't contribute much less exist. :PJGuy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Hey, the breaks. If fifteen people start reading and thinking as a result of that, guys like Meyer will be better off. And it won’t have cost them anything but anxiety.
Yes but Meyer is not a YEC. He believes that the Cambrian explosion happened many hundreds of millions of years ago, not a few thousand years. I would much rather see Bill Nye debate Meyer. Why doesn't he ask to debate Meyer? I guess it's easier to make fun of YECs.Mapou
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
...ah.... nye opts for the [bulgarian] bow-tie variation debating tactic!JGuy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Nye will argue for deep time and Ham will argue for observational science? Not that I am a YEC, but NYE, the science guy, loses on both counts. First, time, both short time or deep time, does not help Darwinian claims in the least (in fact the longer the time span appealed to the more contrary to Darwinian claims it becomes!): The interesting thing about Darwinists appealing to deep time to work miracles is that time itself is found to be connected to entropy:
Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/ Time Asymmetry: Time’s Quantum Arrow Has a Preferred Direction, New Analysis Shows – (Nov. 19, 2012) — Excerpt: Time marches relentlessly forward for you and me; watch a movie in reverse, and you’ll quickly see something is amiss.,,, Reported this week in the journal Physical Review Letters, the results are impressively robust, with a 1 in 10 tredecillion (10^43) or 14-sigma level of certainty — far more than needed to declare a discovery. “It was exciting to design an experimental analysis that enabled us to observe, directly and unambiguously, the asymmetrical nature of time,”,,, Taking advantage of the quantum entanglement of the B mesons, which enables information about the first decaying particle to be used to determine the state of its partner at the time of the decay, they were able to find that these transformations happened six times more often in one direction than the other. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121119094627.htm
Yet irreversible entropy, despite the Darwinists vehement denials to the contrary (G. Sewell), is now, experimentally, found to be connected to the information inherent in the cell:
Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) turns information into energy – November 2010 Excerpt: Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform
Yet this irreversible relationship of entropy to the information inherent in the cell is completely contrary to what Darwinists need for their theory to be true:
“Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259. “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century
And this tendency of entropic processes of the universe to decrease information in a cell is overwhelmingly confirmed to be true from our laboratory work (observational evidence) covering the last four decades:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
And this irreversible process is also born out in computer simulation over deep time:
Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle – “Haldane’s Ratchet” – Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford – 2013 Excerpt: We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as “Haldane’s Dilemma” is very real. Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon “Haldane’s Ratchet”. http://media.wix.com/ugd/a704d4_47bcf08eda0e4926a44a8ac9cbfa9c20.pdf
Thus, Darwinists, in their appeal to deep time, are found to be postulating that the irreversible ‘random’ events of entropy of the universe, entropic events which explain time itself in the first place, are creating information when in fact it is now shown that these random entropic events in the cell, and of the universe, will do exactly the opposite of what Darwinists claim they can do. These ‘random’ entropic events are found to be consistently destroying the information in the cell rather than ever creating it. It is the equivalent in science of someone claiming that gravity can make things fall up instead of down, and that is not overstating the bizarre situation we find ourselves in in the least with Darwinists, since gravity itself is tied to time and entropy.
Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! – January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/
And if Ham really wanted to press observational evidence home, he could point out Leggett's Inequality to Nye in which the 'observer' is central to the experiment:
"Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" - Scott Aaronson - Decoherence and Hidden Variables Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Verified to 80 orders of magnitude) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
Verse and Music:
John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. Chris Tomlin - Awake My Soul (with Lecrae) [Official Lyric Video] http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=0902E1NU
bornagain77
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
People really need to grow up and get over this charade that believing in Universal Common Ancestry is important to a child's success in the sciences. What a complete joke. Whoever is promulgating this myth should be ashamed.lifepsy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
You can conduct your own debate/experiment at Costco as shown here: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/costco-and-the-creation-evolution-debate/ayearningforpublius
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Wow... a full two and half hours... Debate Format 7:00 Welcome by moderator, Tom Foreman, CNN 7:05 Opening statements by debater #1 7:10 Opening statements by debater #2 7:15 Moderator comments 7:16 Presentation by debater #1 7:45 Moderator comments 7:50 Presentation by debater #2 8:20 Moderator gives rebuttal instructions 8:25 Rebuttal for debater #1 8:30 Rebuttal for debater #2 8:35 Counter-rebuttal for debater #1 8:40 Counter-rebuttal for debater #2 8:45 Q&A instructions by moderator 8:48 Moderator reads pre-submitted questions alternating between debaters 9:28 Moderator concludes debateJGuy
February 4, 2014
February
02
Feb
4
04
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply