Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Saturday March 01 2014, @08:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-both-get-dirty-and-the-pig-likes-it dept.

McGruber writes:

"Following up on the Bil Nye and Ken Ham debate on Creationism, Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73 million. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016. Ham credits the high-profile evolution debate he had with "Science Guy" Bill Nye on Feb. 4 with boosting support for the project.

After learning that the project would move forward, Nye said he was 'heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky,' lamenting that the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's Young-earth Creationist ministry. 'Voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest.' Nye hopes."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by lubricus on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:34AM

    by lubricus (232) on Saturday March 01 2014, @10:34AM (#9046)

    I really respect Bill Nye, I remember "Bill Nye the science guy" with great fondness.

    Having said that, Nye got played.

    The whole creation vs. evolution debate was a publicity stunt to justify raising money for the ark, which until then, was probably going to fail, and the junk bonds Ham issued were going to be worthless without the infusion of public money.

    Many scientists have entered into debates with creationists and and they always "lose". Even though he's not a biologist, I think Nye, as a mass market science educator, had the best chance of "winning". I put everything in quotes because "winning" and "losing" in this instance has nothing to do with stating a well-founded cases, but rather what the crowd "believes" ie. feels, as they leave the room. Scientists will always try to present data to support ideas, creationists just have to keep talking or repeat statements like "you weren't there". Debates don't provide the time, nor the mechanisms for conveying lots of data. Finally, the presumption of the scientist will always be that data makes the argument, but this is not the case for non-scientists. For those with strong faith, the converse is true: the more emotionally impactful argument will "win" and how does a scientist compete with the immediate emotional impact of faith?

    Scientists: "debates" do more harm than good to the goal of promoting science and rationality. Please don't participate in them.

    --
    ... sorry about the typos
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Saturday March 01 2014, @01:13PM

    by bucc5062 (699) on Saturday March 01 2014, @01:13PM (#9087)

    I would wish that scientists stop trying to debate creationists. That is not where the fight is at. WHen I come across one who believes in the literal writing of the bible I just grin, metaphorically path their head and say almost nothing except to say, "I don't agree with your view". That is it. I understand religious fervor (grew up a PK) and it cannot ever be changed by logic. Emotion, maybe, but not logic.

    The fight is within the Constitution and our government to strongly enforce the separation clause. More time, more effort needs to be made to ensure governments cannot sanction one story over another. If Crazy Hamm got a Muni Bond to build his ark, then I figure someone else should be able to (at least) petition a bond to build the Temple of Pasta or recreate some ancient story object. If not then Hamm should not be granted a bond. Build it on personal money, not government,

    This is our undoing, we try to convert the crazy when we need to use the Law to just stop them. Most people in this country will and do support separation. It just needs to be made clear. "No one is stopping you from building an Ark. You just cannot use government money for help".

    --
    The more things change, the more they look the same
    • (Score: 1) by M. Baranczak on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:08PM

      by M. Baranczak (1673) on Saturday March 01 2014, @06:08PM (#9180)

      If Crazy Hamm got a Muni Bond to build his ark, then I figure someone else should be able to (at least) petition a bond to build the Temple of Pasta or recreate some ancient story object.

      That's basically what they're doing now in Oklahoma City. The yahoos in the state legislature put the Ten Commandments in front of the state house. So now there are other groups that want to put up statues of Hanuman, Satan, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, among others.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @07:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @07:22PM (#9197)

      I had bought a sex toy online, and since my billing address is still with my parents, the company sent them a catalog. "Discreet shipping" somehow includes sending catalogs to your billing address.

      My dad then called to express his concerns that the devil had my soul and that I was going to hell. I explained to him the wild difference in views of the afterlife between the OT and the NT as well as the Zoroastrian hypothesis accounting for this change. (Corollary: there is not a hell to go to.) I also mentioned the insoluble discrepancies in the birth narratives of Matthew & Luke as well as in the resurrection accounts. He dismissed this for the most part, but said he would do more reading.

      Do you think this kind of approach is helpful? Previously, I wouldn't have said much at all, but he was laying it on pretty thick, and I felt the need to defend myself...

      And for fuck's sake, sexual thinking dominated my life to a much greater extent when I was religious because I thought it was sinful. I feel like my thinking in this area is much healthier now that I don't believe that shit. But my dad believes "by simple faith" that the devil is out to devour me and that I'm going to hell. God of love, my ass.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Sir Finkus on Saturday March 01 2014, @03:33PM

    by Sir Finkus (192) on Saturday March 01 2014, @03:33PM (#9135) Journal

    I could not disagree more. I grew up a creationist, and never got exposed to evolutionary theory. As a child, I actually received a wonderful book filled with illustrations and explanations detailing how the process took place and it was taken away from me by my parents. My teachers cumulatively probably spent a week glossing over the subject. It was only when I started watching debates and lectures by Dawkins and other scientists that I understood that I was wrong. The process wasn't immediate, but watching the debates was highly entertaining and I did my own research. Eventually I realized that evolution was really the only theory that made sense.

    People tend to put themselves in bubbles where they only hear perspectives that align with their own. A lot of people don't even really think all that deeply about some of their most deeply held beliefs. Ham may get his ark, but Nye presented a great case, and maybe planted a spark in some people.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @04:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01 2014, @04:44PM (#9154)

    Nye made a good point at the beginning of the debate about how true science makes useful predictions. So, even with all the warnings in advance, he didn't see this coming?

    As one writer put it, The Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Was a Nightmare for Science [thedailybeast.com]