
Ham on Nye: The high cost of “winning” an evolution/creation debate - fortepianissimo
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/ham-on-nye-the-high-cost-of-winning-an-evolutioncreation-debate/
======
mgraczyk
I didn't watch the entire debate because it was clearly not intended to inform
an educated audience, but the parts that I did see really disturbed me.
Neither of the debaters made any tangible assertions, nor any statements of
fact that contradicted statements made by the other. Nonetheless, the two
still somehow found a way to "argue" and "debate" for two hours.

Nye should have had it easy. He could have argued that creationists need to
demonstrate why their beliefs are any more true than the hundreds of other
contradictory creation myths that come from various world cultures (as
salgernon mentioned). He also could have argued that science and creationism
are not fundamentally incompatible, but instead sort of orthogonal.
Creationism can be thought of as a cosmological hypothesis. It happens to be a
hypothesis that is basically impossible to test, so scientists instead spend
their time evaluating other hypothesis.

Instead, it sounded like he argued the position that "science helps us learn
and do cool things, plus you don't need to believe in God to seek answers to
life's important question." Weak position. Counter argument: "I don't care
about learning or technology because when I die I am going to heaven, and
that's ultimately more important than science."

~~~
joelrunyon
> He also could have argued that science and creationism are not fundamentally
> incompatible, but instead sort of orthogonal. Creationism can be thought of
> as a cosmological hypothesis. It happens to be a hypothesis that is
> basically impossible to test, so scientists instead spend their time
> evaluating other hypothesis.

I'm really surprised this didn't come up more as the idea that "science is
attacking _my_ religion" tends to be one of the main reasons that people
seemed to be adverse to science. It places a false dichotomy in choosing
between their faith & science.

~~~
lutusp
> I'm really surprised this didn't come up more as the idea that "science is
> attacking my religion" tends to be one of the main reasons that people
> seemed to be adverse to science. It places a false dichotomy in choosing
> between their faith & science.

There's a dichotomy between science and religion, but it's not false by any
means. In the most fundamental sense, and not to oversimplify, the scientific
mind assumes ideas to be false until there is evidence to support them
(scientists call this the "null hypothesis"), and the religious mind assumes
an idea to be true until evidence proves it false -- exactly the opposite
outlook.

Why is it a mistake to assume claims are true unless proven false? Easily
explained — let's say I'm a True Believer who believes in Bigfoot. According
to the True Believer's way of picturing reality, Bigfoot exists unless someone
can prove he doesn't exist. But think about this — Bigfoot cannot possibly be
proven not to exist somewhere in the universe, hiding under some rock. In
formal logic, a disproof would require "proof of a negative", an impossible
evidentiary burden. Therefore a skeptical, scientific outlook is essential to
avoid wasting time on childish fantasies. Need I add that religious people
just don't understand this?

Remember this when you see endless phony TV documentaries about Bigfoot, the
Loch Ness monster and ghost hunters. These shows are popular because most
people don't have the slightest idea how to process ideas. And only some of
them have religious beliefs -- others are simply out in the ozone.

The above is the "big secret", the divide that separates science and religion.
And it's not a puddle, it's bigger than the Grand Canyon.

~~~
joelrunyon
That might be true - but it doesn't have to necessarily relevant on the topic
of evolution.

If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than
running to points where you'll know you find contention. Baby steps.

~~~
lutusp
> If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than
> running to points where you'll know you find contention.

Some contention is unavoidable. Consider the chasm that separates science and
religion -- the scientist's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be
false until there's supporting evidence. The religious believer's default
outlook is that ideas are assumed to be true until evidence proves them false
(and some believers refuse to examine any evidence) -- exactly the opposite
outlook. This can't be waved away, and no meaningful discussion can begin
until the chasm is bridged.

Until 1600, religion solved the science problem by killing all the scientists.
Since then, it has solved the problem by ignoring science, even while living
in a world increasingly defined by science and scientific thinking. That's not
a trivial problem, and it's not a question of common ground -- there isn't
one.

> Baby steps.

Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they
choose.

~~~
joelrunyon
> Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they
> choose.

I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to
take an approach of "let them figure it out" \- while abdicating any
responsibility for helping them do so. That approach exemplifies the attitude
of "amateurs get angry, professional educate"[1]. I think you can argue that
Nye was the consummate professional in that regard in that he's willing to
engage a discussion in order to educate people & explain the importance of
science & the need for proper education.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474)

~~~
lutusp
> I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to
> take an approach of "let them figure it out" \- while abdicating any
> responsibility for helping them do so.

You're obviously a thoughtful person, but this business of "helping them do
so" is in my view rather paternalistic. I think the right moment for a
religious person to engage with science is when he feels he must, to make
sense of his life, not when a scientifically literate acquaintance
independently decides it's time. This serves to break the pattern of bogus
authority and a lifelong dependence on others for intellectual guidance.

Just my two cents' worth.

------
nextstep
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
\--Mark Twain

~~~
pkulak
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves
into."

~~~
illuminate
Disagree. Even smart people believe dumb things because they have a greater
ability to rationalize their choice of beliefs.

Not saying that creationists (YEC or otherwise) are generally smart, but a
lack of "reason" isn't always an excuse.

~~~
mercurial
The parent never said smart people couldn't hold completely irrational
beliefs. They just did not arrive to their position by reasoning about the
issue.

I was reading this article about a vocal Japanese revisionist. Like
creationists, or conspiracy theorists, there is nothing rational about these
beliefs. When you reach for the conclusion first, and establish it is the
absolute truth and then cherry-pick and twist facts and make excuses to
support your conclusion, you are actively engaged in a process of denying
reality. These people don't need a TV debate, they need a therapy.

On the other hand, you probably have people who have never really examined
_why_ they believe in creationism, and do not suffer from the same disease.
These people may be convinced, perhaps, but they are not the ones at the
frontline of the movement, frothing at the mouth and being engaged in a public
debate as if they had any shred of credibility.

~~~
illuminate
I was responding to the "they didn't reason themselves into". They most
certainly used a reasoning, just one grounded in sophistry, not reality.

------
salgernon
No creationist has ever been able to explain why their version should be
preferred over, say, Mayan creation myths. It kind of makes my mind explode
that they can claim absolute truth over other such myths. But, that's
religion, I guess. Pointless and I wish bill nye hadn't given th the time of
day.

~~~
mkhpalm
To be fair, thats like asking you to explain why gravity works. (without
saying that it just does) There are a lot of things that seem simple which
smart people have only theorized.

~~~
lutusp
> To be fair, thats like asking you to explain why gravity works. (without
> saying that it just does) There are a lot of things that seem simple which
> smart people have only theorized.

Be careful when you say "only theorized." A well-supported scientific theory
is the highest form of human knowledge. A scientific theory isn't just a hunch
(the everyday meaning of theory), it's a combination of observational
evidence, a careful explanation of the evidence, and some predictions based on
the explanation that can be researched to expand the domain of the theory. And
(very important) a basis for falsifying the theory, an observation that would
prove the theory false.

The recent discovery of the Higgs boson is an example of theory confirmation
-- it's based on the "standard model", the theoretical structure of modern
physics, and the Higgs was predicted on theoretical grounds long before we had
any chance to detect it.

As to "smart people only theorized", gravity has an explanation, and a very
good one -- general relativity. Relativity is one of the two best-confirmed
scientific theories we have (the other one is quantum theory, that makes our
computers possible).

Please remember this when you want to say "only a theory".

------
chilldream
Atheist who grew up in Oklahoma here. The people in this thread who think that
the correct tactic is to immediately jump to "Why is your religion better than
Mayan creation myths?" are completely clueless. If you ever even met a
creationist, you would know that that would just make them dig in their heels
and "confirm" their low opinion of mainstream science.

The idea of tiptoeing around religious fundamentalism may bother you, but
ultimately you have to decide if you want to be as "right" as possible or if
you want to have a shot at convincing someone. And if you don't care about
convincing the kind of person who can be a young earth creationist in 2014,
then I don't know why you'd even pay attention to any of this.

~~~
salgernon
I'm an atheist that spent my teenage years at a quasi religious military
school in south Texas. There was a school chaplain. There were bullies that
assumed that since I didn't believe in god, I must therefore worship satan.

I had a revolver held to my head for this when I was 15. Loaded? Dunno. No
reason to think that it wasn't. He did this because he wanted me to renounce
my beliefs, which I didn't do before someone pulled him away...

My point being that these are not rational people, they cannot be reasoned
with or taught reality. They wallow and take pride in their ignorance with a
"god said it I believe it that settles it" conviction.

It won't do them by good in the end, since they will die and release their
carbon like the rest of us, but to the extent that they hurt society by their
insistence that fairy stories should govern our lives, discourage
understanding our universe and preach their bigoted filth, we should give them
no truck and no platform. They are worthy of our contempt and scorn and public
ridicule, but there is no point in debating them.

------
lisper
OMG, that was painful. Bill Nye began by wasting two of his five minutes of
opening statement talking about freakin' bow ties!

Then the first substantive statement out of his mouth was: the question
tonight is, does Ken Ham's creation story hold up? Is it viable?

No no no! The question is: what is science? And the answer is, as the late
great Richard Feynman put it, science is the proposition that EXPERIMENT is
the ultimate arbiter of truth. So as soon as you say, as Ken Ham does, that
the Bible is the ultimate arbiter of truth, you are not doing science BY
DEFINITION.

Now, Ken Ham contends that secularists have "hijacked" the word "science." No.
It is Ken Ham who has hijacked the word, because the definition is not
arbitrary. There is a REASON for it. That reason is, as Ken Ham himself
admitted, it works. Experimental science has produced all of the world's
technological progress.

When Ken Ham claims that the central tenet of science -- that experiment is
the ultimate arbiter of truth -- cannot be applied to the past because "we
weren't there" he is simply, demonstrably wrong. It can be, and it is.

Now, of course one can choose, as Ken Ham does, not to accept the premise that
experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth. There are certainly areas of
human endeavor where that standard is not applicable: art, poetry, music. But
it can certainly be applied to the past.

The debate should not be about whether Ken Ham's model of the world is
"viable", the debate should be about what is the standard by which truth is
decided: experiment, or a holy text. You can choose one or the other, but
experiment produces better results.

~~~
yoduddde
You should read this. Really read it (like the whole thing):
[http://www.discovery.org/a/2834](http://www.discovery.org/a/2834)

(warning: Stephen Meyer is several notches up the scale of intellectual acuity
than Ham)

In short, any set of criteria you choose to demarcate science from non-science
will either simultaneously include or simultaneously exclude _both_
intelligent design _and_ 'descent from common ancestor'. [And, in the case of
inclusion will also bring in a lot of other non-sensical theories].

~~~
lisper
You have completely missed the point. The debate is not (or at least should
not be) about what is and is not science. That is merely quibbling over
terminology. The debate is (or should be) over the process one uses to arrive
at the truth. Empirically, if you use experiment as your arbiter of truth, you
are led to make VASTLY more accurate predictions about the world, and hence
obtain vastly more power to control the world, than any other criterion that
man has yet managed to devise (and in particular, you do better than using any
holy text as your arbiter of truth).

It doesn't matter if intelligent design is or is not science. What matters is
that when you put ID or YEC to experimental test, it fails. When you put
Darwinian evolution to experimental test, it succeeds. Whether or not that
makes evolution "true" is a debate over the meaning of the word "true", not
the meaning of the word "science." You can choose to believe that the universe
is borne on the back of a turtle. You can even call that science if you like.
But if you put your turtle cosmology to experimental test, I will bet you any
amount of money you care to wager that your predictions will be wrong. In the
long run, I will win and you will lose. THAT is what matters.

~~~
yoduddde
That's not true. ID is based on forensic science and information science. I
know that this debate wasn't about what is or isn't science but I think that,
in the larger picture, it definitely is. Evolution is dogma and it isn't to be
challenged. Let anyone who does so be considered anathema (blasphemous even!).

[Btw, I'm not defending YEC but I definitely do think that ID has a place in
the discussion]. We are going to continue to make so many more discoveries at
the sub-cellular level of organic life that continued support of the idea of
abiogenesis will look rather silly (and honestly it already does).

------
callmeed
Unfortunately, there's also a high cost to people who are christians but are
not young earth creationists. Nye actually did a good job pointing out that
many reconcile their faith and science and that he was specifically debating
Ham's view. Of course, that will probably get glossed over and some will
takeaway that _christian == wacky like ham_

~~~
mcv
I'm a Christian, and I feel that people like Ham are actively harming
Christianity, by effectively teaching people that it's at odds with the
observable reality of this world, God's creation (which is studied by
science). If you teach people that your faith contradicts science, and they
later discover that science works, then what do you think their conclusion is
going to be?

And it's so utterly unnecessary. For centuries Christians haven't had any
problems with science. This stupid biblical literalism movement is a very
recent thing, and it thrives on ignorance. It's harmful not just to science,
but also to Christianity. It's a false idol.

~~~
greyfade
And yet Christians have, at many times, rejected science in favor of dogma.
See, for example, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, Nicolas Copernicus, and
other scientists who were tortured, excommunicated, imprisoned, or had their
works banned by the Church in the 15th, 16th, and early 17th centuries, when
the Catholic Church had essentially absolute political power.

It wasn't until the Church lost its political power that anti-scientific
sentiment diminished.

~~~
mcv
> See, for example, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, Nicolas Copernicus

You clearly do not know what the Galileo case was about. I'm not sure about
Bruno, but Copernicus wasn't prosecuted, excommunicated or tortured either. If
you believe Galileo or Copernicus were, then you've been fed lies or have
jumped to unfounded conclusions (though you wouldn't be the first).

The Church of that day played an active role in science, and was absolutely
open to the possibility of a heliocentric system. But they wanted a model that
accurately reflected observations, which Galileo's model didn't. Galileo
claimed it was correct anyway (which it wasn't), and called the pope a fool,
for which he got house arrest, but wasn't tortured or anything. Eventually,
Keppler's model was proven correct and was accepted by the church.

------
joelrunyon
A lot of people seem to be saying that you shouldn't talk to people who are
familiar with creationism at all.

Question: What alternative method is there to reach them? Believe it or not,
there are some communities where science isn't readily known. What's the
alternative? Refusing to engage sounds not only spiteful but not very useful
as you're essentially giving up on a segment of the population while
simultaneously getting upset that they don't know better.

~~~
joelrunyon
Using another example that might help this crowd - this reaction reminds me of
an article by Paul Jarvis: "Amateurs get angry with clients. Professionals
educate them"[1].

There seem to be a lot of people here that are angry & not a lot of people
willing to educate. It's easy to label & categorize a whole group of people
(whether clients or people who may be uninformed), but if you have the ability
to inform, educate & change their opinion over time and don't try - don't get
mad at people for staying uninformed - it's your fault.

If you attempt and they're hostile, that's a whole different story, but it's
definitely worth attempting.

[1] [http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we-
get](http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we-get)

~~~
mikeash
I think it's a product of the typical nerd black-and-white thinking. People
are either raging fundamentalists who take the Bible as literal truth and
reject all science that contradicts it, or they are reasonable people who
think the Earth is old and evolution happened.

In reality, there are a ton of creationists who aren't raging fundamentalists.
They aren't creationists because they believe so fervently that they cannot
accept any contrary evidence. They're simply creationists because _that 's all
they know_. Many of these people, when exposed to the truth in a constructive
way, will change their minds.

In fact, I was one of those people. My elementary school taught creationism
and I believed it because, well, why not? Later on I found out about the
scientific explanations, and came to accept them instead.

You'll never convince Ken Ham. Nor will you convince his hardcore supporters.
That's not the point. The point is to reach out to people who _aren 't_
hardcore about it, but who still believe nonsense simply because they don't
know any better. And what better way to convince them to listen at all than to
involve a religious figure arguing for the other side? How many of these non-
fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye Explains Evolution",
versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince _lots_ of them.

~~~
joelrunyon
> How many of these non-fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye
> Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince lots
> of them.

I think this is a great point that a lot of people are missing. It's sort of
like trying to lay out the features that you like about your product as a
developer when realizing that your customer cares _nothing_ about what you
like and you have to present / sell it to them in a way completely different
to how you would sell it to yourself.

------
hooande
The problem is that religion is a package deal. Members of religious
communities see and do a lot of good through the church. They raise money for
charity, form close knit social groups and generally spend more time thinking
about the good of others than the average person does. But all of this good
comes at an ideological price and it could all fall apart easily.

If gradual evolution is true then the book of Genesis must be wrong. If the
book of Genesis isn't "true", then the Bible itself is based on a lie. If the
Bible is a lie then what's the point of going to church? No one wants to
worship a fallacious holy book. And if people stop going to church then
they'll lose their sense of community and stop doing all the charity work. The
thought is too much to bear. It's better just to believe everything the book
says, whole cloth, and defend it against all attacks.

A debate won't change any minds, but a dialogue will. We shouldn't ignore
creationists. We should continue to talk to them, even if we spend a lot of
time arguing over insignificant details. This kind of argument can't be won
with facts and figures, but only through attaining mutual respect. It may not
have been a good idea for Bill Nye to accept this debate, but he had the
opportunity to change some minds with the the way that he carried himself and
presented his beliefs.

------
FD3SA
For the life of me, I never understood why evolutionary biologists engage in
such ridiculous behavior. Instead of explaining religion from a scientific
point of view, they instead debate nonsense as if it is on equal footing with
empirically validated science. Richard Dawkins, who taught me biology through
his incredible books, has wasted a majority of his life following this foolish
path. I still don't understand why.

Religious beliefs result in adaptive behaviors proven to increase fitness in
certain environments. That is, these behaviors enhance the fitness of the
genes which make one predisposed to religiosity. This has been hypothesized
many times, and is the only rational explanation for the vast and fervent
religious behaviors we witness today. In brief, religious behaviors cause
individuals to engage in cooperative exchanges which are mutually beneficial
to both parties. Iterated over many interactions, in a large population, with
reputation, it becomes obvious that these behaviors are adaptive.

What biologists must emphasize is that religious behaviors are distinct from
religious mythology. It is the behaviors we are interested in as scientists,
not the literary masterpieces that constitute such works as the Bible, Quran,
Torah, etc. Although they are linked, from an empirical point of view it is
meaningless to analyze the philosophy of religion. We must instead look at the
behaviors and their resultant consequences.

For those interested, there is a massive amount of knowledge on this subject.
I would recommend beginning with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene, and
intuitively working through the corollaries thereafter. Further reading can be
found here [1].

1\. [http://evolution-of-religion.com/](http://evolution-of-religion.com/)

EDIT: Removed Wikipedia link as it wasn't very useful upon closer inspection.
The research group linked instead is a much better resource. Also reworded for
clarity as per comments below.

~~~
pg
"these behaviors enhance the fitness of the genes which make one predisposed
to religiosity. This has been hypothesized many times, and is the only
rational explanation for the vast and fervent religious behaviors we witness
today."

It's certainly not the only possible explanation.

~~~
FD3SA
Please share your thoughts. I honestly love this subject, and am willing to
waste an inordinate amount of time discussing all possibilities.

~~~
Retric
It's also possible that religion is a net negative just not a significant net
negative, aka it's a thought virus. Viruses have a lot more pressure to avoid
being a huge negative like killing there host quickly than they do helping
their host, but as long as they can spread it's ok to be lethal as long as
it's not rapidly lethal.

EX: Religions who's priests avoid reproduction are clearly a net negative on
the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint.

~~~
FD3SA
Quite possibly, though that begets one more question:

Why are certain religions much more successful than others?

@herbig

>Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that
other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their
environment.

Precisely!

@lutusp

Absolutely. But we have to remember that religious behaviors act through
humans. As such, they become just like any other behavior which is selected by
evolution through natural selection at the genetic level. Am I correct in
assuming that you were thinking of bees and ants, which display behaviors
which may not be individually adaptive, but genetically so? If that's the
case, you may find this paper [1] interesting.

1\.
[http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long](http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long)

@pjscott

Perfect, now let's look at every single one of these factors through the eyes
of an evolutionary biologist. You will find that almost each one has a direct
analogue in evolution, and the behaviors become indistinguishable from those
seen across a wide variety of species. They are just much more nuanced
versions of the same tactics employed by every living creature.

~~~
lutusp
> Why are certain religions much more successful than others?

Evolution. I know this sounds like a punch line for a joke, but consider that
a religion's doctrinal choices represent natural selection -- some choices are
more effective than others, and a dominant religion in a world of competing
religions equals a dominant species in a world of competing species -- the
same rules apply.

And what are the successful species traits? One, a reverence for authority, a
time-tested way to attract and hold people who cannot think for themselves.
Two, a prohibition against having sex without the intent to breed more
miniature believers, a prohibition that the Catholics have raised to an art
form. Three, a prohibition against independent thought or constructive
criticism, in which the masses are described as a flock of sheep, and they eat
it up.

The great irony is that many religions (not all by any means), while very
clearly exploiting the strategy of evolution by natural selection to grow
their submissive flocks, reject the very idea of evolution, describe it as an
evil idea.

------
transfire
I have come to understand the people that don't believe in evolution are
either incapable of grasping the concept or they are too afraid to accept it
b/c of it's (supposed) implications. My grandmother is one of the former.
Whenever we discuss it she always asks why apes are still here if we descended
from them. I try to explain about a common ancestor, etc. But it is useless.
Perhaps she too just doesn't want to accept the implications, but I have to
consider it possible she simply is incapable of grasping the theory. My mother
on the other hand is of the later group. It took quite a bit of effort but I
think she finally understood the basic idea. However, she is simply too afraid
that believing it might mean there is no such place as Heaven. And that, she
just cannot bare to accept.

So it is useless really to argue the facts of Evolution vs Creationism. It's
the wrong argument. If the person is capable of scientific thinking at all,
you still have deal the emotional question of death.

------
edandersen
Is there anyone on HN happy to admit they are a creationist?

~~~
dave1010uk
I wouldn't call myself a creationist, but I think there's a substantial chance
that our current understanding of the physics of the universe will seem as
backwards to people in a 200 years as people's under standing 200 years ago
does to us now. I even believe that there's a small chance that our
understanding of the universe now will seem as backwards as creationism in
5000 years.

As there is so much we don't know yet, it seems crazy to say that creationism
absolutely cannot be true, even though it's crazy to say that creationism is
true.

------
SworDsy
The distinction between 'observational' and 'historical' is a matter of
political and social convenience.

Consider carbon dating. Since it's been observed, we should assume it's
observational. carbon dating indicates that dinosaurs existed hundreds of
millions of years ago instead of mere thousands. but that's historical and
therefore this is a contradiction, so we can't assume the distinction.

the only logical conclusion is that we have a false premise.

~~~
jurassic
Minor nit pick here, but carbon dating is not used to date fossils and rocks
because C14 has a half-life of only ~5k years. With such a short half-life,
the C14 all decays away to trace levels in only a few tens of thousands of
years.

Other radioactive isotopes with much longer half-lives are more appropriate
for geologic dating. The U-Pb system is really good for most geologic
applications.

------
nickff
I used to think that debates like this were important, until I realized that
you never 'win' anything.

------
thecolorblue
Although, the idea of debates like these is great, I feel that they do little
to make people think rationally, or convince anyone to switch sides. They only
galvanize each sides feels that they are right.

------
genofon
it's unbelievable that the argument of the creationist guy was: "it's not true
cause you didn't observe it" and "the evidence it's god's word" as god was
something we can all observe...

how can you discuss on this nonsense?

------
msandford
I REALLY hate to agree with a creationist to any degree but there is something
to the observational/historical debate.

We now understand a LOT of physics and chemistry. That's because it's
observational, and because it's observational you can make predictions,
perform experiments and get results. Other people can do the same as well,
thus enabling not only peer review but actual verifiability.

This is why we understand physics and chemistry extremely well, biology OK but
rapidly improving, and economics and public policy much less well. Because we
can reproduce results in physics everyone either agrees on the truth or is
generally regarded as a crackpot. Biologists can't produce the kinds of
extremely clean data physicists can but it's still meaningful. In
macroeconomics there's very little ability to perform experiments in a
repeatable fashion, which results in everyone observing the world and then
arguing about why things happened and nobody can prove that they're right or
that others are wrong.

When you're dealing with math or computer science induction is a great tool
that allows you to do pretty incredible things. But it does so because the
nature of math or algorithms is stationary; the rules are 100% fixed from the
beginning of time 'til the end (or so you can assume if you're building the
system) and thus any assumptions are by definition correct. It's much harder
to do this when you're dealing with things that can change over time (and thus
potentially invalidate your assumptions), which is basically everything else.
That's not to say that induction is worthless outside of math and computer
science but it's use comes with more caveats.

I totally get why serious scientists don't want to even acknowledge that a
creationist might raise a good point but once it's made the damage is done. If
you don't respond at all they pile on saying "look he doesn't have an answer
for X!" and if you do respond with a reasonable statement about "this is the
best we know thus far and of course nothing can be known until we observe it
directly" then they'll pile on with "see it's not guaranteed!" Both of those
outcomes are extremely frustrating when you're dealing with someone who can't
be convinced with any amount of evidence.

But failing to acknowledge that there is a difference between direct
observation and historical/induction and that they create two classes of
certainty which are not identical does the very tedious and difficult work of
science a disservice in my opinion.

EDIT: To clarify I think what I'm mostly talking about is certainty. If you
can't directly (or indirectly) observe something happening with some kind of
experiment you can have a personal opinion about certainty and someone else
can have another but neither one can be provably wrong. Once that happens
there's real certainty and very little room for opinion anymore. Until then
things are a bit more fluid. A well educated person's estimate of certainty
might be much more accurate than a plebe's but it's not guaranteed to be
right.

~~~
nothiggs
As you say, it seems that the main point of creationists' argument is that
historical science isn't valid, because "you haven't seen it happen".

There are so many things wrong with this argument that I don't even know where
to begin, but let's play along with this ridiculous line of thought anyway.
The obvious question that follows is why is the "historical science" given by
the bible any more plausible than the "historical science" of any other
creation myth
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths))
?

Of course there is a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct
evidence, but even if you can't guarantee that your interpretation of the
circumstantial evidence is true (something which by the way you can't do with
direct evidence either), one should strive to find an interpretation that has
the highest probability of being true given all the evidence at a given
moment.

~~~
msandford
Look I completely agree with you that the creationists are irrationally
clinging to a fairly small nitpick and using it to bury their heads in the
sand.

BUT that doesn't mean that the small point that they raise with regards to
repeatedly observing in the now versus observing the record of the past isn't
valid.

>one should strive to find an interpretation that has the highest probability
of being true given all the evidence at a given moment

Agreed but until the matter is settled via direct observation by multiple
people in multiple experiments you have to kind of play Schrodinger's cat with
the evidence. Just because you think you've found the highest probability
explanation doesn't make it true, and thus alternative explanations aren't
"false" but merely "less likely" Others might disagree with your level of
certainty and at this point we're all basically spouting opinions, not facts.

------
joesmo
tl;dr: "Creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our
modern society and Nye is about to treat it as an equal, debatable
'controversy'."

"Scientists should not debate creationists. Period."

------
pstack
I had a debate with someone over the existence of Santa Clause, but it was
difficult, because the toddler was munching on crayons at the time.

