Why would a man so certain about his faith not relish debating his ideas in public? Because it's all utter crap? Nah, that can't be it.

$5 says he backs out at the last minute, citing illness. Somehow it won't be rescheduled.

you know, a lot of people dismiss the literality of the bible, but still live by its precepts - charity, honesty, do unto others, etc. some even believe that jesus was allright.

how can they do that? how can they act in concert with the bible's general admonitions, yet not believe that every word is accurate to the exclusion of science?

THEY ARE NOT CRAZY, Ken Ham. you crazy fuck.

This will be good!

Expect Mr.Ham to declare indisputable victory approximately 5 minutes after the end of the debate; or however long it takes he or one of his minions to selectively edit out all the parts where Nye mops the proverbial floor with his religio-maniacal "arguments".

It wasn't evolution that led me to dismiss the bible, it was the fact it was editied and published in its (somewhat) current form 300 years after the the events that are written inside. Is it a book? yes. does it contain some good lessions? sure. is the the written word of god? Not unless you worship emperor constantine as the creator.

This reminds me of Dan's dinner with that Christian wingnut (whatever his name was). Nothing was accomplished, and both of them declared victory.

Pointless waste of time. Just a way for both sides to claim a definite victory for their cause. And don't expect any minds to be changed.

I recall my own crisis of faith when I was a grade school aged occasional Sunday school goer and realized that the stories were meant to be literal and not figurative. The idea that adults actually believed that crap was a revelation to my pre-pubescent mind.

For me, as a child, the notion that Christianity was the only way to heaven seemed absolutely absurd. So I read a book about the Buddha. No more bible bullshit for me after that.

Arguing with religious types is a waste of time, although it can be a mildly entertaining distraction occasionally, I suppose.

@7, are you thinking of Kent Hovind?

Best of all, Bill Nye will be debating while maintaining strict adherence to the regulations of the International Speed Walking Association.

I enjoy Bill Nye as much as the next scientist, but the guy was a mechanical engineer before he went to television. I think there's better authorities on evolutionary links than Mr Nye. I believe Evolutionary Biology is a "thing".
http://www.biology.washington.edu/resear…

Also, I'm not sure all his views on GMOs and labeling are all that scientifically grounded.
http://thephysicspolice.blogspot.com/201…

I applaud Bill for engaging in this debate, but it will end like they all do. Each will make his points, sometimes addressing one another, other times talking past one another, and in the end they will "agree to disagree". Then their camps (and I'm betting Ken's will be much, much louder) will proclaim to all that their point of view won. Or maybe Ken will go all fire and brimstone bonkers and make for some great viewing on Youtube. I'm hoping this will happen.

@14:

But, who will he High Five at the end?

1. I hope Bill Nye gets a full, unedited copy of the video as part of the deal.

2."...because they saw evolution as showing the Bible could not be trusted. ....that'd be because they were taught & assured by their parents and other adults that the Bible's words were literal truth. Oops!

... Do these evangelicals even *teach* the allegorical and symbolic layers of the Bible? Or are they only about the literal and lesson-based metaphorical levels?

3. People above are right, rationality and evidence don't get in the way of ardent believers. The debate won't change them, but it *might* change the opinions of the younger generation below them who aren't self-brainwashed yet.

4. Ken Ham may back out, as y'all suspect. But he seems to be building this up pretty strong... it's part of his "ministry theme" after all; he already made a monologique "retort video". -- He'd look pretty wimpy if he bailed. Not that the True Believers would mind, but again, the kids will probably take note of the discrepancy between his words and deeds.

5. Interesting that the debate takes place just two days after a traditional pagan holiday of Imbolc aka Brighid (Feb.2), (which is halfway between the winter solstice and the vernal equinox,) and later "Christianized" by the invading Romans as a way to keep the Irish locals occupied but complacent. Teach the Controversy!

6. I will totally pray for Ken Ham! ;D

I love watching science being defended in a public forum, but what's to stop Ken from a full Gish Gallop* or simply redefining terms or making things up?

*If you've never heard this term before, it means to overload someone with a million misleading questions that are impossible to answer in the given amount of time.

God stands with Bill Nye - not least because bow ties are cool

Mmm...grilled Ham on Nye with extra prickles.

Here is how a debate with a creationist always goes:

Creationist: "blah, blah, blah, you don't have the evidence"
Scientist: Shows the multiple independent lines of evidence
Creationist: "But it doesn't explain X"
Scientist: Explains X
Repeat for 30 minutes, and then
Creationist: "But how can a duck change into something not a duck"
Scientist: Attempts to explain that evolution affects populations composed of individuals, not a generic concept of a duck, and that there is no pure 'essence' that is an exact duck

There, I saved you time. I assure you, the debate will not be particularly educational, nor will it allow the scientist to convince the creationist. Everyone will leave the debate feeling like their time could have been better spent masturbating. After the debate, both sides will declare that they won.

I have loved ones in Kentucky. Most of them - at least those I would call friends - are gentle, educated, bullshit-hating, live-and-let-live, people. They don't take the Bible literally and they keep a safe distance from those backwoods kooks that do.

Please, can we not call it "Kentucky's Creation Museum"?
It's the Creation Museum, located in Kentucky.

Geographically, it sits where it can 'serve' the Cincinnatti Oh and Indiana region more so than Ky.

Publicly debating anti or pseudo-science wingnuts is always a losing battle. First, you have the Gish Gallop (as @19 points out). Second, the debate legitimizes your opponent. Third, you are bound by a nuanced truth and your opponent is not.

Here is a good podcast on this issue: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4167

From the skeptoid:

"It has been argued that scientists have a huge advantage in debates because we have the facts on our side. Well, so we do, but that's not an advantage at all. Rather, it's a limitation. The audience members who are not scientists can rarely discriminate between facts and pseudofacts. The pseudoscientist has an unlimited supply of sources and claims and validations. He can say whatever he wants. If compelling rhetoric would benefit from any given argument, he can always make that argument. Pseudosciences have typically been designed around compelling rhetorical arguments. The facts of science, on the other hand, rarely happen to coincide with the best possible logic argument. Having the facts on your side is not an advantage, it's a limitation; and it's a limitation that's very dangerous to the cause of science should you throw it onto the debate floor."

Ken Ham video LOL

If you like winning arguments, always take the Creationist side. You can pull as many rabbits out of the hat as you need: "God did it to test our faith", etc.

Why is it that these idiots insist on making a 2000+ year old book about faith into a textbook on science?

Giving a creationist a platform to share with an advocate for science just promotes the impression that faith is on an equal footing with science when trying to address questions about the real world.

“Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids,” made me think of Trayvon Martin, and that made me sad and angry. Naming their theme that is, at best, oblivious.

I look forward to that debate.

I for one doubt it'll happen - Ham will only do it if the groundrules allow him to be the total ass he is, and Nye will, or should, refuse to accept those rules. Creationists know that their "side" is all about showbiz and hokum, and showbiz is, of course, staged. If Ham isn't allowed to stage things the way he wants, he'll ooze away.

I've been fascinated by evolution for ages and it's never made me want to dismiss the Bible. Unless by "dismiss the Bible" you mean "disregard the literalist interpretation pushed by a bunch of right-wing Christians".
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." --Galileo Galilei

@15: You don't need a college education in evolutionary biology (like I have) to debate a Creationist. Don't hate on the Nye.
@23: Word.

Remember, if Bill Nye wins, it means you didn't pray hard enough and God doesn't love you. Sorry.

I was going to remark that the excerpt seemed almost out of Ken Ham's character in how polite and welcoming it seemed.

Then I watched that retort video for all of 57 seconds.

Now I have the context to know that there's a whole mountain of dog whistles in that statement, and it's just as slimy and smugly self-satisfied as anything that Ham belches into a microphone so regularly.

I don't know what it is about liberals that they feel like they have to sincerely and with great detail answer every batshit "question" fundamentalists put to them. Those long answers just give the fundamentalist plenty of time to look exaggeratedly astounded at the idiocy of the liberal. The audience loves that. Memories of Reagan's "There he goes again."

GRRRRR I fucking hate that bullshit museum. I sincerely hope Nye knows what he is getting into. Unfortunately I am inclined to think he doesn't. It is possible that Nye has a background in theology in which case he could wipe the floor with Ham but I suspect not.

Science is useless in beating the Creationist argument unless you can first breakdown the book of Genesis.

@5 (wisepunk), I like your typo: " does it contain some good lessions? sure."
Something tells me that now, and for the rest of my life, any time someone mentions "bible lessons" I am going to think "bible lesions."

Some questions for a friendly debate, is there evolution if there is no time? How will evolutionary biology meet new physical paradigms about time, space and so on? Will new conceptual changes deny evolution? Or on the contrary, will it become a more extraordinary process, full of astonishing implications? If so, will human being and the rest of life beings become different as science progresses? Will the image in the mirror of theories change? After all, is life, its origin and evolution, something fix-finite-defined? That is, can one understand it with its peculiar brain and its limited words? Will science add indefinitely without understanding completely? Anyway, is it possible to understand something totally? Along these lines, there is a different book, a preview in http://goo.gl/rfVqw6 Just another suggestion

@39 don't bogart that joint.

What the eff ever. My father in law is both a scientist and a Catholic. My husband attended Catholic schools before the days of intelligent design. They were taught about evolution in science class and creationism in religion classes. I have a Lutheran minister friend who says that it's within reason to consider that evolutionary accounts of creation and creationist accounts are not mutuall exclusive. But neither of them is a real big fan of Caribou Barbie or her cast of idiots either. And they're BOTH Republican.

@41 Minny,

"What the eff ever".

For some reason I imagined a "Valley Girl"-ish voice speaking that line. Now all I can envision is a similar toned voice over during the debate. Malibu in seven days? Like totally...

Peace

@39 editorz,

No.
Not in this space time continuum.
No.
In my view of the creation and evolution of the Universe over billions of years, No.
Yes, evolution is dependent upon our changing environment.
Image in the mirror of theories... What???
No.
Somewhat.
Yes.
As humans, No.

See, all answered!

Peace

@ChefJoe: The last link that you provided makes Mr. Nye out to be as religious as the guy he's debating, and not in a good way, either.

Don't get me wrong, I'll still support Mr. Nye in this upcoming debate, but I don't support this farrago of woo about GMO's from him.