You may have already heard
that Bill Nye, the Science Guy, is going to debate creationist Ken Ham
at the Creation Museum on February 4th.
And I know a lot of atheists, especially, including Richard Dawkins, they say
to Bill Nye, "You shouldn't be doing this, don't debate
Ken Ham. He's a creationist. It's not even science."
"And by participating in the debate you're giving some sort of
credibility."
As if there is some sort of debate, you're giving some sort of credibility to creationism.
And there really shouldn't be a debate at all.
But Bill Nye is doing it. So--
So, with that in mind, I have some advice for Bill Nye
so that he can make the most of this debate
that really shouldn't be happening in the first place.
Remember,
your goal is not to win the debate. Believe it or not, it's not to win the debate.
The debate it's been over for a long time.
Your side, the science side, has already won.
But your goal in the debate
should be to remember that some people in that audience
have never really heard
about evolution. They've never gotten an accurate explanation of what evolution is.
And you may be the first credible scientist they're ever listening to.
So, I think if you're going with the goal of
popping the bubble
that some of these kids live in, and exposing them,
and giving them something that they can go back home about and say,
"I want to learn more about that",
you've done that kid a huge favor.
I mean, how many people are
scientists now, when they were creationists in the past?
How many people are atheists now,
when they were religious in the past
because someone said something or wrote something down that just
stuck in their minds and it made them question?
And ultimately they were like, "Yeah, I think that person is right".
It happened for me, I suspect it happened for a lot of you out there.
And that is the power
that Bill Nye could have in this debate.
He may be able to say something
that will get some of those kids, that Ken Ham always seems to preach to,
may be able to get one of those kids to say,
"Wow that is fascinating. I want to learn more about that".
"And you know what? I don't think
I'm going do it with Ken Ham's material."
"I actually want to know what you have to say about it."
"I want to know what other scientists say about it."
So, even the mentioning of names of some credible scientists,
who have said things that you would never hear in the Creation Museum,
it'll give them something to latch onto, something for them to look up
in the future, maybe when their parents are not watching them.
And, you know, it will be nice to create a few rebels out there
whose act of rebellion is to learn real science.
I would actually try not to throw a lot of science at the audience.
I worry that it might be too overwhelming.
So, if you're bringing up something like
carbon 14 dating or even DNA evidence,
and the age of the universe because of the microwave maps and things like that,
I worry that
that audience may respond
the same way I do when I open up a philosophy text book. I look at it,
I see all these big words; I kind of freak out, and I just--
I'm done with it.
And you don't want to scare the audience.
And unfortunately,
how do you have a conversation about creationism or evolution?
It begins and ends with the science.
But, Bill Nye is a science communicator. I mean, you're a science communicator. You know how to say this stuff in a way that doesn't scare people.
So, not to worry about it.
But I would just caution you that
it is possible for people who are exposed to real science
that throwing too much in their direction might actually hurt you more than it'll help you.
And you should ask Ken Ham,
"What would it take to get you to change your mind?"
You know, what would it take for Ken Ham not to be a creationist anymore?
And the answer is going to be: nothing.
Because the answers are in Genesis. That's what Ken Ham believes, that the book of Genesis is totally 100% literal
and right.
Nothing would get him to change his mind.
You could have the most convincing scientific evidence, which
we know already exists, but
you could get something that's like God writing a memo saying, "Nope, evolution is totally right".
Shove it in Ken Ham's face, and he'd still say,
"It's not what the Answer-- That's not what Genesis says, it's not what the Bible says".
And that's an important point for the audience to understand.
That Ken Ham is unwilling to change his mind, no matter what the evidence shows.
Good scientists would never say that. Good scientists would say,
"If the evidence contradicts what I believe,
I have to change what I believe".
That's what science is all about.
Ken Ham doesn't subscribe to that, because Ken Ham is not a true scientist.
And I think a lot of audience members may be shock to learn that
you could show any piece of evidence
and Ken Ham would refuse to change his mind. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of a debate,
and it's worth pointing that out to them.
Stick to sound bites.
I know you're a science communicator, so you know this well.
But the science--
The details of the science may be over a lot of people's heads, and they're not going to remember that after the debate.
But if you have a line or two,
even ones you've written out ahead of time,
those may stick in people's heads.
Make the point that if
Ken Ham would actually disproved evolution, if he actually had a good argument,
he would be one of the most important figures of the century,
of the millennia,
to overthrow such common wisdom that is accepted by scientists everywhere.
But he can't do that. Because what Ken Ham has to offer is not science,
it's just belief.
Make the point that
many Christians around the country and around the world
they have no problem
reconciling their belief in God and what the Bible says
with evolution.
And they accept it fully. And they have no problem merging those two together.
I know a lot of atheists like myself see that as a bit of a contradiction, but the fact remains there are a lot Christians out there
who do accept evolution.
And if you are in the audience, isn't it worth your while to figure out
how so many of these Christians can reconcile those two worlds?
You can talk about evidence
all you want, but I think you got to realize that for a lot of creationists that are in the audience,
even Ken Ham, it's just going to go in one ear and out the other.
And like I said, you don't want bombard them with science, but realize that a lot of those
points are just going to go out the window.
So, it's important that you know exactly what Ken Ham's arguments are going to be
and you have good rebuttals for them already prepared.
Were you there?
Yes! Because "there" is "here".
Things that happened in the past,
leave traces of themselves in the present, and that's how we can
figure out what happened.
Were you there?
Yes, I was there.
And if you don't believe me,
well, can you prove it? Were you there to prove that I wasn't there?
Were you there?
No, I wasn't. But were you there?
No, I wasn't there.
But I do know someone who was there,
and he always tells the truth, and he left us a record of the truth in a book,
and that's the Bible, and that's how we know what happened.
So, what you're telling me is the best evidence you have
is hearsay and eyewitness testimony? That's pretty pathetic.
Remember that
even if creationists like Ken Ham try to dismiss the fossil record
for whatever reason, and they talk about all the gaps in the fossil record,
it really doesn't matter because
evidence is supported
by so many different fields of science, whether is
anatomy, or biology, or geology,
that even if they knock one down, there's like four other branches of science that support it.
It's a big game of whack-a-mole
and no matter what Ken Ham tries to slam down, there's all this other stuff coming right up.
So, he won't be able to destroy it. Just remember that.
Try not to laugh every time Ken Ham opens his mouth. It'll make you look a lot better.
You may want to bring some protective mittens or gloves with you.
I know the debate is indoors, but I anticipate you're going to be doing a lot of this.
And that might hurt after a while. So, get some protective pad in there.
Challenge Ken Ham to a different debate
after this one is over. Maybe the next time you guys can debate, you know,
the stork theory of reproduction.
My name is Hemant Mehta, and I write at FriendlyAtheist.com
Please, leave a message in the comments and we'll be sure to check it out.