Bill Nye versus Ken Hamm debate (Feb4,2014)

[hanelyp]

Re: Amino acids, I understand those used by life as we know it are produced by biological processes from raw materials or by modifying other amino acids. Which suggests an economy in a single production chain on the base form. If amino acids of both handedness's were produced, mechanisms would need to be selective between them. If we were to have both handedness's of a single amino acid, the protein linking process would need to be extremely selective or proteins would be regularly messed up. So as I see it (with my limited chemistry background) there is substantial practical advantage to using only a single handedness of amino acids.

Only science that permits debate and open discussion of its tenets is really science. What Bill is advocating is something very much less. If a scientific theory cannot obtain in the face of antagonism, it is not true. What Nye is saying is that things like evolution need to be protected from criticism, and our experience is of the complete opposite of this.

I probably shouldn't be surprised by this. Bill Nye has come out as a warmist.

[Skipjack]

And about that last, I have a special note. Nye is famous for arguing that allowing a creationist view in modern culture hurts the state of science and injures us--makes us unable to compete against more science based cultures around the world. Bill is completely wrong here.
Only science that permits debate and open discussion of its tenets is really science. What Bill is advocating is something very much less. If a scientific theory cannot obtain in the face of antagonism, it is not true. What Nye is saying is that things like evolution need to be protected from criticism, and our experience is of the complete opposite of this. Evolution needs to be exposed to criticism, just as all scientific theory does. Nye has argued in the past, that the US will fall behind the rest of the world unless it quenches this creationist standpoint, but the facts are that the US leads in this upstart, oddball view and it leads the world in innovation and advancement as well. So pretending we won't be able to compete based upon whether some small segment of society has been thoroughly indoctrinated is just crazy talk.

You are misquoting Nye here. He did not say such thing. He said that if we teach our children religious beliefs instead of science, we will fall behind. The brains capacity is limited and kids are already filling their brains with a lot of nonsense (from all sorts of media sources) besides the useful knowledge they learn at school. Religious people will most likely already go to church and sunday school where they hear about religious ideas like young earth creationism. There is no need to add more of that in science class, which should be reserved for science.

[GIThruster]

You are misquoting Nye here.

I didn't quote anyone. I merely reported what Nye is on record as having said. He has time and again made the argument that I reported. How can you possibly have knowledge that he never made such an argument? That's like proving a negative--logically impossible.

Here's Nye: "When you have a portion of the population who doesn't believe in it, it holds everybody back".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

He is here saying EXACTLY what I said he is saying, and it is a ludicrous and ridiculous argument. Bill is a bigot. He does not respect the beliefs of others. He believes those who do not accept evolution are not "scientifically literate", despite he is well aware there are many PhD scientists who do not accept evolution.

Doesn't matter how you dress up indoctrination nor justify it--it is always wrong and evolution does not need to be protected the way Nye presumes. As we muggles say, "the truth will win out".

[Skipjack]

You are misquoting Nye here.

I didn't quote anyone. I merely reported what Nye is on record as having said. He has time and again made the argument that I reported. How can you possibly have knowledge that he never made such an argument? That's like proving a negative--logically impossible.

Here's Nye: "When you have a portion of the population who doesn't believe in it, it holds everybody back".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

He is here saying EXACTLY what I said he is saying, and it is a ludicrous and ridiculous argument. Bill is a bigot. He does not respect the beliefs of others. He believes those who do not accept evolution are not "scientifically literate", despite he is well aware there are many PhD scientists who do not accept evolution.

Doesn't matter how you dress up indoctrination nor justify it--it is always wrong and evolution does not need to be protected the way Nye presumes. As we muggles say, "the truth will win out".

I should have been more precise with my quote. I was referring to this part of what you said:

What Nye is saying is that things like evolution need to be protected from criticism, and our experience is of the complete opposite of this.".

This is not what he said in the discussion and that is not what he said in the video you posted. I do actually believe that he is right with what he says in the video.

No, "When you have a portion of the population who doesn't believe in it, it holds everybody back" is not the same as saying

[GIThruster]

Skippy, Bill is making a handful of terrible arguments and misstatements of fact here. Just a 3 minute perusal from the above link:

1) "Denial of evolution is unique to the United States". Not true. One of the biggest names in creationism is Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith who is from Britain, and Hamm is from Australia.

2) "People still move to the United States and that's largely because of the intellectual capital and the general understanding of science." is bullshit. People move here because of the economic opportunities, not our embrace of evolution.

3) "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everybody back." Obviously NOT TRUE. If most creationists are here in the States (and they are), why are people moving here again? These arguments are self-contradictory. It is obviously the case Nye is wrong here.

4) "If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy." Well this is really the rub with most bigots. Everyone who doesn't think like them must be crazy.

Just noting, Bill is a bigot. The arguments he makes against allowing any opposition to the status quo position are fallacious arguments and misstatements of fact. He's not worth watching on this issue.

[Skipjack]

Skippy, Bill is making a handful of terrible arguments and misstatements of fact here. Just a 3 minute perusal from the above link:

1) "Denial of evolution is unique to the United States". Not true. One of the biggest names in creationism is Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith who is from Britain, and Hamm is from Australia.

2) "People still move to the United States and that's largely because of the intellectual capital and the general understanding of science." is bullshit. People move here because of the economic opportunities, not our embrace of evolution.

3) "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everybody back." Obviously NOT TRUE. If most creationists are here in the States (and they are), why are people moving here again? These arguments are self-contradictory. It is obviously the case Nye is wrong here.

4) "If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy." Well this is really the rub with most bigots. Everyone who doesn't think like them must be crazy.

Just noting, Bill is a bigot. The arguments he makes against allowing any opposition to the status quo position are fallacious arguments and misstatements of fact. He's not worth watching on this issue.

I agree that his argumentation is lacking in some places. As I said, I was not too impressed with the way he handled things in the debate either. I would have wiped the floor with Hamm.
At 1) Indeed it is not unique to the United States. E.g. most Muslim believers also deny evolution. Many religious fundamentalists in all countries do. I think that the US is unique among western countries in regards to the amount of media exposure and political influence that creationists have.

At 2) I might agree with that to an extent. The US is already falling behind in research in some areas and it is mainly economic inertia that has been keeping it ahead until now. At some point though, the top 1% will have to realize that you can not make money from just circulating money. You need either production or know how to create new value. Otherwise you keep circling the same value (or worse value imported from other countries), which means that someone will have to loose in order for someone to get richer, rendering trickle down impossible.
Now, it is getting increasingly difficult for the US to compete with cheap countries when it comes to production, which mostly leaves know how generated by science and engineering as drivers for the economy. You can only excel at those, if you excel at educating your people. This is becoming increasingly challenging in the US. The cost for education has been rising and the middle class usually the source of engineers, scientists (medical doctors, lawyers, etc, ) is drifting towards the bottom. Without a functioning, well educated middle class, the US will face a serious problem very soon. Now my opinion is that the limited amount education available to American middle class citizens can be used to teach meaningful things, or it can be used to teach religion. As I said, religion is already readily available (and consumed) from many sources. So I do not see the need to further expose people to it in science class. You can use philosophy class for it, if you deem it necessary.

At 3) Well it holds people back because creationists might end up in leadership positions (unfortunately you don't need to understand science in order to become a politician, lawyer or CEO, a business degree from Harvard is enough) and they might seek to use their position to push their religious agenda, even if it is not in the best interest of the company, the country, or the district they lead. They might block scientific advancement because of their religious beliefs. Good examples are objections to research in genetic engineering and embryonic stem cells.

At 4), He said "world view becomes crazy", not "you become crazy". I do find it a rather unfortunate choice of words though and not very useful.

The best argument against creationism is that it is not a science. It does not use the scientific method. So it has not place in science class other than as an example of how not to do it.

[GIThruster]

The best argument against creationism is that it is not a science. It does not use the scientific method.

Agreed. The situation is far more complex when you look at the modern Intelligent Design movement. I haven't looked at it as carefully as I did the earlier movement some 25 years ago, but they don't seem to violate scientific method in the same ways, and because they don't claim a young Earth, they don't have to make the argument that "God created with an appearance of age", thus denying the basic tenets of empiricism. IMHO, the arguments of modern ID do have a place in the classroom, because they are generally just rational challenges to things like the process of natural selection, the information theory behind mechanism generation, etc., and without that influence, evolutionists are likely to do as their predecessors which is to simply teach their doctrines as that and do no real science. ID folks force the issue and ultimately will promote better science.

[Skipjack]

The best argument against creationism is that it is not a science. It does not use the scientific method.

Agreed. The situation is far more complex when you look at the modern Intelligent Design movement. I haven't looked at it as carefully as I did the earlier movement some 25 years ago, but they don't seem to violate scientific method in the same ways, and because they don't claim a young Earth, they don't have to make the argument that "God created with an appearance of age", thus denying the basic tenets of empiricism. IMHO, the arguments of modern ID do have a place in the classroom, because they are generally just rational challenges to things like the process of natural selection, the information theory behind mechanism generation, etc., and without that influence, evolutionists are likely to do as their predecessors which is to simply teach their doctrines as that and do no real science. ID folks force the issue and ultimately will promote better science.

ID is also not a science, because it also starts with a theory and then goes on to interpret the observed facts (and sometimes ignoring observed facts) to match the theory.

[GIThruster]

ID is also not a science, because it also starts with a theory and then goes on to interpret the observed facts (and sometimes ignoring observed facts) to match the theory.

You'll have a difficult time convincing anyone who knows what science is all about of that position. Science goes by all sorts of definitions, and evolution does not fit into most of them, so arguing the way you are is not in the long run going to be valuable to you.

But lets presume your position. This does not change the fact that ID poses challenges to the status quo position that force better science from scientists. Without the barbs, all we get is dogma, which is as anti-scientific as one can get. Science needs to be challenged to remain science, and because of the nature of the issue, most people do not think critically about it unless forced to.

"Truth will win out" is really the watch word here. If you believe science needs to be protected from challenges, you are doing religion, not science.

[Skipjack]

ID is also not a science, because it also starts with a theory and then goes on to interpret the observed facts (and sometimes ignoring observed facts) to match the theory.

You'll have a difficult time convincing anyone who knows what science is all about of that position. Science goes by all sorts of definitions, and evolution does not fit into most of them, so arguing the way you are is not in the long run going to be valuable to you.

But lets presume your position. This does not change the fact that ID poses challenges to the status quo position that force better science from scientists. Without the barbs, all we get is dogma, which is as anti-scientific as one can get. Science needs to be challenged to remain science, and because of the nature of the issue, most people do not think critically about it unless forced to.

"Truth will win out" is really the watch word here. If you believe science needs to be protected from challenges, you are doing religion, not science.

I don't believe that science needs to be protected from challenges. I do believe however, that religion does not belong into a science class. The kids have a full schedule of stuff that they need to learn and most of them cant fit all of that into their heads anyway. In addition to that various media these days fill their heads with plenty of nonsense already. There is no need to add religion to science class. If you want to learn about religion, go to Sunday school!
Also curious how evolution does not fit into most definitions of science. This is silly. While we are talking about it, I found it rather strange that Nye did not counter Hamm's claim that evolution can not be observed. Of course it can be! Antibiotics resistant bacteria are a result of one observable evolutionary process that is happening (unfortunately) way to often and right under our noses. Another is pests that are resistant to pesticides.

[GIThruster]

Skippy, I'm not an ID guy and I haven't even glanced at it in many years, so I can't answer all your questions. I can tell you though, that you misunderstand the difference between the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.

Natural selection does not explain the "survival of the fittest" near so well as the unsurvival of the unfit. It is the editing process where unsuccessful lifeforms that do not adapt, die. No one doubts that certain species or sub-species die. The really interesting part of all evolution, is the origin of advantageous mutation. Where does that come from?

In the examples you cite, the variation inside a bacterial community already exists, and when those that cannot resist anti-biotics die, those that are left flourish. The question remains, how did this adaptation originate that any of a set community were resistant to begin with? And this is of course where most genetic experimentation takes place, both by human design and in nature.

It is the ID people that are holding biologists feet to the fire on this issue. This has nothing to do with religion. You want to weave a magic wand of chaos and time over the issue and a theist might wave the wand of a creator over the issue, but neither of those answers the specific question. We're agreed that arguments that God is or is not necessary do not belong in a science classroom, but that is not the content of the really interesting questions about mutation, the origins of genetic structural and functional information, and the general ID debate.

BTW, what have you (or anyone else here) heard about a currently inexplicable change in the Neanderthal population about 45,000 years ago? What was splashed on Huffington a year or two ago was sensationalism I didn't follow but it was akin to a "creation event" that suddenly altered Neanderthals. Unless you want to posit ancient astronauts or God intervening, I'd think you'd be very interested in this mutation. What was it that caused this supposedly astonishing and sudden change? That, is a question for a science class, despite how it may have religious connotations. (Not sure if it relates but I am not familiar with the "Denisovans" so this may be the thing that is a relatively recent discovery. Just found that with a quick search.)

[Skipjack]

The really interesting part of all evolution, is the origin of advantageous mutation. Where does that come from?

We all know how mutations happen. They happen all the time through radiation, chemicals, viruses and other external and internal factors. It is observable all the time in the population of every species. Many mutations have negative effects and the line with the mutation dies out within a generation. Some mutations only have an effect when they get combined with another mutation. Most mutations have no effect for generations until maybe, at some point over thousands, or millions of years something happens that gives the line with the mutation and advantage. Some processes are slow, others are fast. Location, seclusion and inbreeding can also play a role. This is not a one explanation for all kind of thing. The only thing we know is that for one mutation to become prevalent, there has to be a pressure that gives it an advantage in regards to the number of offspring that is generated before the individual with the mutation dies. Perversely this does not always mean that the best and brightest are the ones that survive. Sometimes, like nowadays it can be the opposite...

In the examples you cite, the variation inside a bacterial community already exists, and when those that cannot resist anti-biotics die, those that are left flourish. The question remains, how did this adaptation originate that any of a set community were resistant to begin with?

There is no such thing as "adaption". In a population of billions of individuals that is procreating very quickly, random mutations happen all the time, by all sorts of mechanisms. The smaller the population and the lower the fertility rate the lower the number of mutations and the slower the evolutionary process. This is very clearly observable, if you compare the evolution of rats and cockroaches compared to humans.

BTW, what have you (or anyone else here) heard about a currently inexplicable change in the Neanderthal population about 45,000 years ago?

I don't know anything about that. Due to a very busy work schedule lately, I have not been able to read up on this particular topic in a few years (too many other interests that kept my attention). These theories come and go and get adapted all the time. No year goes by without new evidence suggesting another theory. Especially due to genetic analysis the field has seen a lot of movement and new theories emerge every year only to be overtaken by yet another one the year after that. Last I heard was that there were several Neanderthal populations that had a slightly different genetic makeup, some genetic lines were probably killed off by the ice age. That means that over a period of several generations, their survival rate was too low to maintain a large enough population to be genetically relevant. Some Neanderthal populations allegedly cross bred with the homo sapiens. There was some potential genetic and fossil indication of that, though I don't know whether that was ever confirmed or not. I would be careful to hold on to one theory as some sort of "proof" for a creation event. It is more likely that the theory will see some major changes as time goes on and new evidence is uncovered. This is the difference between science and ID. Science looks for evidence and adapts the theory. ID has a theory and looks for evidence that matches it (whilst dismissing other evidence that does not fit).

[GIThruster]

This is the difference between science and ID. Science looks for evidence and adapts the theory. ID has a theory and looks for evidence that matches it (whilst dismissing other evidence that does not fit).

Lets say this is a difference between good science and bad. Unfortunately this happens in thousands of research centers every day. Most science is looking to validate a pet theory, not falsify one. The trouble with validation though is just as you suggest--that it is never anything like proof. So any explanation that posits God is always subject to revision in the future. I think what is often called the "God of the gaps" trouble. This has always been the case with the theistic argument for creation by design. That doesn't mean we can't make use of the arguments coming from that camp. Some of them are quite good.

[Skipjack]

On the argument that "you cant proof evolution in experiment", here is a good example for an experiment that proofs evolution in experiment, pretty new (the experiment has been low running, but results are being published again now):
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02 ... evolution/

[Skipjack]

Lets say this is a difference between good science and bad. Unfortunately this happens in thousands of research centers every day. Most science is looking to validate a pet theory, not falsify one. The trouble with validation though is just as you suggest--that it is never anything like proof.

I admit that with all likelihood, this is happening, but the good news is that others that do research in the same field, will eventually find evidence that disproves this "bad science". Of course the scientists in question will get a chance to defend their theory, but the better research usually prevails, even if it might take some effort to overcome the inertia needed to move forward.