Asian American feminism, politics, and pop culture
Earlier this week, Bill Nye debated Ken Ham in a little museum in Kentucky. Buzzfeed, ever delighted to turn pop culture spectacles into listicles, asked 22 Creationists to write questions they would ask a person who believed in evolution (and here’s the parallel article of 22 messages from evolutionists to Creationists).
Here are my responses.
Continue reading “22 Responses to 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe in Evolution”
In just over two weeks, Bill Nye (the Science Guy) is scheduled to travel to Kentucky to debate evolution with Ken Ham, founder and CEO of the Creationism Museum. There are a lot of scientists (and anti-creationist advocates) who are up-in-arms over Nye’s decision to engage the trolls.
Dan Arel over at the Richard Dawkins Institute writes:
When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating….
Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus. Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested…
Ham is a snake oil salesmen and Nye just offered him up an infomercial to sell his product. Ham can repeat his mantra over and over; “teach the controversy”.
Arel is absolutely right: debating Creationism with a scientist dignifies Creationism, elevating it to the level of rational debate. However, Arel is wrong for concluding that for this reason Nye should not participate in the “debate”.
Here’s why: not having the debate is against the scientific faith.
Continue reading “The Scientific Faith: Why Bill Nye is right to debate Creationism”