The debate event between Bill Nye and Ken Ham attracted the notice of the Tampa Bay Times: Nye, Ham unearth age-old debate: Evolution vs. Creationism. Our very own Florida Citizens for Science vice president Jonathan Smith was asked for his reaction before and after the debate.
Before:
“All this achieves is to give creationism some sort of credence that it does not deserve,” said Jonathan Smith, co-founder of Florida Citizens for Science, a group dedicated to improving science education.
After:
“Did anyone win?” Smith said. “I think Ken Ham failed to answer any of Bill Nye’s questions. … Ham’s mind-set is that he has all the answers in his book and then he tries to fit his world view to match the book. That’s not how science works.
“Bottom line for me and many of my colleagues — Nye cooked the Ham.”
Agreed. Ham could not see provide one logical answer to any of Nye’s questions. When he did answer, my thought was “really?”.
Interesting article. Two comments by the author stand out as profound. “evolution and creationism are sacred truths:”, “Why give credit to a mythology when science is infallible, said many, including Richard Dawkins.” Sacred truths, Science is infallible?
Unbelievable, Creationism is now mythology and science is the infallible god of evolution. This is one of the very old Pagan religious doctrines from the Egyptians and Sumerians. It’s about time Dawkins confirmed his true pagan religious beliefs.
Chris,
Try as i might, I can’t find any quote by Dawkins or any other good scientists for that matter, who say science is infallible. Neither can I find any quotes on science being a sacred truth. Perhaps that was just a little journalistic add libbing on the part of the author?
The one thing that is true, Creationism is not “now mythology” as you said,it has always been mythology and will continue to be so until some one can come up with any real scientific evidence.
Ivorygirl,
Then if that’s the case Johanthan Smith should write an article pronto refuting the comments, that is of course they are not true.
However, todays evolution is a Hindue religous doctrine and remains an ancient pagan belief, that’s not refutable.
“Perhaps that was just a little journalistic add libbing on the part of the author?” Add libbing is how we got to molicule to man evolution in the first place.
I’ll try to contact her for quote varification, the email given doesn’t work for me.
I was able to email Sarah Whitman. So far no answer.
… todays evolution is a Hindue religous doctrine and remains an ancient pagan belief, that’s not refutable.
I think several of those words do not mean what you think they mean.
Please explain exactly which Hindu (note spelling!) doctrine you have in mind, how you think it influenced Charles Darwin (the Beagle did not visit India while D served on board), and where you found this -ahem! – story. Name names!
Pierce,
I can tell you. That’s what happens when your mind is soaked with mindless religious presuppositions. Chris is a champion at that !!!
Ivorygirl – Yabbut Chris, so far, has shown much more inclination to parrot than to invent.
I feel genuinely curious as to whether a new (to me, anyway) creationist meme of Hindo-Darwinism has popped up, and whether we will all need to study yet another archaic mythology to get through future debates.