Ok, I could have gone with "Inherit the Wind Take2" as a title, but went with a different twist instead.
You may have heard or read that Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" of TV fame, is going to Kentucky to debate the founder/director of a Creationist museum, Ken Ham. You know that "museum", the one that shows dioramas of people and dinosaurs living at the same time.
They will debate whether or not Creationism is a viable explanation for life and its diversity.
Been thinking about this throughout the day and reading other people debate about it as well.
And I'm torn.
On the one hand I believe it's a mistake and a waste of time. Creationists believe something to be true based on belief and in spite of contradictory evidence. So no amount of evidence or logic will sway them. They will fall back on the "because God did it" defense. Which is why Creationism or Intelligent Design do not belong in a science classroom.
Because at its heart a scientific theory must have the innate ability to be disproved. You can ask questions of a scientific theory and predict the answers. Then you design and perform repeatable experiments, or make observations in nature. If the results are as predicted, the theory is "proved". But if the results do not match then the theory is "disproved". A scientific theory itself can evolve over time based on experimental results or new discoveries. In extreme cases a theory is thrown completely overboard and replaced with a better explanation for the observable phenomena.
You cannot do that with Creationism or Intelligent Design. Any "theory" that relies on a supernatural entity cannot be disproved and therefore is automatically disqualified from the scientific realm of human endeavors. It may indeed qualify as an alternative point of view for how life began, or how it came to be as it is today, but it is not a scientific point of view.
And that is the problem with this "debate". It is not a debate at all. Creationism and Evolution are two completely different ways of viewing the world. One relies on "faith" and the other on evidence and logic. How do you debate that? You might as well try to shoot a moving breeze.
So I figure Mr. Nye has lost as soon as he steps out on the stage.
But maybe, just maybe, there is a silver lining here. Perhaps Bill Nye can at least illuminate the positives of viewing the world based on evidence, facts and critical, logical thinking. And perhaps he can demonstrate how much better that is, for individuals and a country, then to base everything on wishful thinking and a blind faith in something unseen and "unreasonable".
At least I'm keeping my fingers crossed that is the case.
You may have heard or read that Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" of TV fame, is going to Kentucky to debate the founder/director of a Creationist museum, Ken Ham. You know that "museum", the one that shows dioramas of people and dinosaurs living at the same time.
They will debate whether or not Creationism is a viable explanation for life and its diversity.
Been thinking about this throughout the day and reading other people debate about it as well.
And I'm torn.
On the one hand I believe it's a mistake and a waste of time. Creationists believe something to be true based on belief and in spite of contradictory evidence. So no amount of evidence or logic will sway them. They will fall back on the "because God did it" defense. Which is why Creationism or Intelligent Design do not belong in a science classroom.
Because at its heart a scientific theory must have the innate ability to be disproved. You can ask questions of a scientific theory and predict the answers. Then you design and perform repeatable experiments, or make observations in nature. If the results are as predicted, the theory is "proved". But if the results do not match then the theory is "disproved". A scientific theory itself can evolve over time based on experimental results or new discoveries. In extreme cases a theory is thrown completely overboard and replaced with a better explanation for the observable phenomena.
You cannot do that with Creationism or Intelligent Design. Any "theory" that relies on a supernatural entity cannot be disproved and therefore is automatically disqualified from the scientific realm of human endeavors. It may indeed qualify as an alternative point of view for how life began, or how it came to be as it is today, but it is not a scientific point of view.
And that is the problem with this "debate". It is not a debate at all. Creationism and Evolution are two completely different ways of viewing the world. One relies on "faith" and the other on evidence and logic. How do you debate that? You might as well try to shoot a moving breeze.
So I figure Mr. Nye has lost as soon as he steps out on the stage.
But maybe, just maybe, there is a silver lining here. Perhaps Bill Nye can at least illuminate the positives of viewing the world based on evidence, facts and critical, logical thinking. And perhaps he can demonstrate how much better that is, for individuals and a country, then to base everything on wishful thinking and a blind faith in something unseen and "unreasonable".
At least I'm keeping my fingers crossed that is the case.
RSS Feed