Nye will continue his crusade against misinformation this Sunday on "Meet the Press" with a debate against proud climate change denier Marsha Blackburn, the Republican congresswoman who serves as the vice chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.Nye is my new hero! One wonders if Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, or PZ Myers thinks this is a bad idea too!
The host of the once popular after-school staple "Bill Nye the Science Guy" took on committed creationist Ken Ham earlier this month in a debate over the origins of humanity. LINK
If you go to Amazon and click on the book itself you can read what he says on pp. 8-19, with the exception of one page, depending on a random calculation (if you go away and click on it a different time you might see the page missing the first time). Now will you take my proposal seriously? I'm saying the same thing as he did, only I've been suggesting different words to replace the word "theory." In any case, it's time to retire the word "theory" when describing the evolutionary paradigm or research program.Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about the details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. [Why Evolution Is True]
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips...It didn't have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact...No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. (pp. 8-9).Can it be any more clear? Use phrases like "the fact of evolution," or just "evolution." When referring to how a particular scientific discovery supports evolution, rather than saying "this supports evolutionary theory," say instead, "this adds more weight to the fact of evolution." We don't say "the theory of the solar system," nor the theory of other well-established scientific facts. We need a change in nomenclature, now! If you agree then share this plea with others, especially scientists.
I am utterly baffled that atheists would expect an entity who is said to be omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent to behave like an entity who is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent. What's up with that? LINK.
Juan and his wife Daisy have been married for 25 years and have two adult kids Juan Elias and Jessica. Together they serve in multiple areas of ministry in Miami, Florida. Juan is the Senior Pastor of a Spanish speaking congregation. He has also been the Middle School and High School Chaplain at Florida Christian School for the past 13 years, where he also teaches Bible and Introduction to Philosophy. Juan has a passion for youth and has worked with young people all of his adult life in addition to being a teacher for over 20 years. Juan also has a passion for Apologetics. He has done graduate work at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and holds Master’s degrees from both Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Logos Graduate School. He is currently a few months away from completing a Doctorate Degree in Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Juan is a veteran teacher of apologetics, and has taught Theology, Bible, and Apologetics at the seminary level in both English and Spanish. He is an influential promoter of apologetics in the greater Miami area and speaks regularly across the country and internationally at Pastor’s Conferences, Youth Conferences, Apologetics Conferences, and local church events. It's quite simple: to say that the bible is literally true requires that one be either ignorant or lying. Really. I know that's harsh, but that's what it boils down to. I suspect a very great many evangelicals are lying, including to themselves, bolstering the underlying absurdity of their belief by trying to convert others, 'good works' and so on. But there are plenty, including many high-profile ones, who are obvious untruthers.There is a great deal that needs to be said about this, so it would be too much of a bother to go into great depth here. Nonetheless, my point is that it is not that simple.
It takes a truly spectacular degree of ignorance to actually believe that the universe was created in six days, 6000 years ago; and a level of duplicity that is almost incomprehensible to create a complete pseudo-science to support that; but of course we know why - all that lovely tax-free money.
I do not consider it possible for a person of decent education and sound mind to believe such nonsense. One or the other must be failing.
I have not been one to subscribe to any particular style of discourse, in this case debating, being proscribed as a form of public conversation because it is deemed inimical to progressing the truth of science and the scientific method. For too long scientists and science advocates have relied on the misperception that truth, fact and evidence alone, is sufficient enough in promulgating its message. In an ideal world that might be but it is not an ideal world and humanity is not obliged to 'know' the truth. The truth per se, whatever that term might mean, is not an imperative of humanity's survival instinct, any more than it is for any other animal on this planet. It is possible for all species, even Homo sapiens, to exist on this planet without the kind of scientific information and knowledge that we have accrued over time. The Dark Ages is one such historical example of a period of intellectual dormancy. Life would simply be different. And we are just as likely today as was at any time in the past to readily press the self-extinction button.
For too long scientists and science advocates have timorously shied away from debates. Science historically is a veritable babe in the woods in its level of experience and expertise in this most widely used format. The time is right, now, for scientists and like-minded to develop if not hone debating techniques and strategies that play to its great strengths as an explanatory tool. It is a misguided perception that the truth of science and the scientific method cannot be adequately served by and strongly promulgated through debate. If anything, science lends itself admirably to the formative debating process. Indeed debating is a central feature of the Socratic method of learning and teaching. The method of elenchus, or Socratic debate features cross-examination as a constituent technique for the purposes of refutation and testing the robustness of claims made. It is the fundamental technique of the Socratic method.
The truth and reality of science requires its advocates to confront superstition, magic ritual, supernaturalism and shamanic practice wherever and whenever it bubbles to the surface, head on. Debates provide that opportunity. Use it.
We should be presenting a united front. I'm coming to see guys like you and Bill Nye as union-busters, the sort of people who will cross a picket line.Well now, just because I have a different opinion doesn't make me a union buster. There are many atheists who agree with my arguments. Almost every atheist has a different opinion about an atheist consensus sometime, so we're all union busters, if there is a union in the first place. Apart from non-belief itself, and along with it the arguments against religion in general, name me one consensus among atheists and I could find some atheists who disagree with it. So? Majorities SHOULD listen to minorities to keep them honest. I do all of the time. But no one should adopt the position of the majority on any issue just because it's the majority. Moreover, as far as I can tell, scientists don't have any better expertise on what changes the religious landscape just because they are scientists than I do. That is a philosophical or strategic kind of question not based on science itself. It's a question about how we can best change the minds of believers, how to get them to trust science over their holy books, and I think I do have some expertise on that. It's my specialty.
Oh-oh. I hope these don’t become more popular. Debates are a great way to seduce a creationist audience into showing up to listen, but they’re awful for presenting a good analysis: you are publicly pitting a scientist up against a proven, expert liar, and committing to allowing lies to be told for half the time of the event. Sometimes they’ll pay off and you’ll get good exposure of the nonsense; sometimes you’ll find the slick fraud on the creation side getting more attention than he deserves.Given that the debate will take place anyway, PZ offers a suggestion:
Just a hint, though. The title of this debate is “Creation vs. Evolution: A Debate on Origins and the Tree of Life,” which is hopelessly broad. Paul Nelson has carte blanche to babble on in a tuneless song of silliness trying to hit the one chord that will resonate with the audience, and that’s what you’re going to get, and it’s going to be really hard to pin him down on anything. Part of the art of doing these debates, I’ve learned, is to craft a decent structured framework for the discussion, so that you’ve got a clear question to answer and even an audience of biased Christian ninnies will notice when the creationist (or the evolutionist!) goes wandering off topic. I hope it’s not too late to refine the subject a bit.I'll respond to the PZ's criticism against more debates like these, while Wes McMichael, the person putting this new debate together, responds to PZ's criticisms of this debate itself.
You can't have miracles unless you have an order of nature for them to stand out from. A Presidential pardon is only possible because there is a stable system of laws that require punishments for certain crimes, yet our system of laws allows the President to alter the penalty and release someone from those penalties. There is no inconsistency in a system of laws that permits Presidential discretionary pardons.My response:
Many of the things that it is supposed that God could have done to make his existence perfectly evident could be passed off as the work of powerful (but evolved) aliens. And no matter how much evidence God provides, there is some additional piece of evidence that an atheist could say God didn't provide, and if God really cared for us, he would have provided. The amount of evidence God could have provided has no intrinsic maximum.Vic made this comment in this discussion. Like other apologists who have an invested stake in being apologists he won't be convinced otherwise, but since there are Christians who want to be honest with their faith I'll respond.
How does someone know that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, absolute truth, perfect word of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent, perfect God?
But let’s say the Christian faith is true and Jesus did arise from the dead. Let’s say that even though Christianity must punt to mystery and retreat into the realm of mere possibilities to explain itself that it is still true, contrary to what my (God given?) mind leads me to believe. Then what would it take to convince me?
I would need sufficient reasons to overcome my objections, and I would need sufficient evidence to lead me to believe. By “sufficient” here, I mean reasons and evidence that would overcome my skepticism.
From my investigation I highly recommend it.
If we atheists bring up some of the many examples of the despicable actions and character of Yahweh, as described in the Bible, we hear: “But… Jesus… grace… New Covenant...” 
