WATCH VIDEO: Bill Nye and Creationist Ken Ham to host debate at Creation Museum

The Sidney Daily News,Sidney,OH

The Sidney Daily News,Sidney,OH

This debate will air live on YouTube tonight beginning at 7 p.m. EST. CNN correspondent Tom Foreman will moderate. You can watch the debate here:

PETERSBURG, Ky. — Why are we here?

That simple but seemingly unanswerable question will be the central topic of discussion Tuesday night in Petersburg, Ky. as two of the most outspoken participants in the evolution vs. creationism debate will take part in a special conversation at the Creation Museum.

Museum founder Ken Ham and famed pop scientist Bill Nye “The Science Guy” have agreed on the prompt "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" CNN correspondent Tom Foreman will moderate the debate, which begins at 7 p.m.

Ham is a leading creation apologist, best-selling Christian author and president/CEO of Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Bible-defending organization behind the museum and sponsor of the event.

A former science instructor who immigrated to the United States from Australia 27 years ago, he and other creationists contend the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account found in the Book of Genesis, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Nye, a former host of the popular "Bill Nye the Science Guy" TV program for children, supports the idea of evolution, the belief that different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. The theory of evolution was popularized by Charles Darwin in 1859 by way of his book, "On the Origin of Species."

Nye is also the current executive director of the Planetary Society and a frequent guest on TV and radio interview programs on science topics like evolution and creation.

"A debate with Mr. Nye, nationally known for his children's TV program and for promoting evolution, will be one of our major 2014 events that will highlight how children and teens are being influenced by evolutionary thinking," declared Ham in a statement.

"This year our AiG theme is 'standing our ground, rescuing our kids.' Having the opportunity to have a cordial but spirited debate with a well-known personality who is admired by so many young people will help bring the creation/evolution issue to the attention of many more people, including youngsters."

Ham, who took part in a series of similar talks at Harvard University in the 1990s, says he and his organization are willing to hold public evolution-creation debates with serious evolutionists because they are rare these days.

However, while some willing opponents have come forward in past, they are often “mocking, strident evolutionists” who don’t take the creationist point of view seriously so their requests were not considered, Ham said.

Nye’s challenge was accepted, Ham said, because he is a “serious advocate for his beliefs” and his “opinions carry weight in society.”

"I hope to show Mr. Nye and our debate audience that observational science confirms the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account of origins, not evolution," Ham said of Nye, who developed a cult following in the ‘90s for preaching the scientific method and reason to a generation of American children.

An email inquiry to Nye's assistant was not immediately returned. The museum had been hoping to attract bow-tied celebrity scientist after he said in a YouTube video that teaching creationism was bad for children.

"I say to the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them," Nye said in the video posted in August 2012, which has amassed nearly 6 million views.

The two will debate in front of more than 900 people at the sold out Legacy Hall auditorium at the museum. It took less than two minutes to sell out the venue, according to spokesperson Melany Ethridge.

Each participant will deliver what he believes is the best information currently available for his case. Each then has an opportunity for rebuttal and afterward answers questions submitted by the audience, which will be comprised of people from 29 states and the country of Belize.

The attention the event has received has drawn comments from notable names on both sides of the argument.

Dr. David DeWitt, director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., said in a written statement that he is "thrilled about the debate."

"I am thrilled that people will clearly see the contrast between a Biblical creation view and an atheistic evolutionary one," said the president of the university that conferred an honorary doctorate on Ham. "This will be a very well watched debate and I think there will be people surprised at how much evidence there really is that supports creation."

While some mainstream scientists voiced support for the debate, others aren't sure how much good will come from it. Dr. Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, called it "pointless and counterproductive.''

"If Nye wants to further acceptance of evolution, he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists," he wrote in an an article posted on his blog, Why Evolution Is True. "By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform."

In addition to those taking part in the event in person, well more than 1 million people are expected to watch online on various websites, including naplesnews.com, Creation Museum officials announced in a release.

The expected number of watchers is an estimate based on the more than 10,000 churches, schools, colleges and organization that contacted to the museum to let them know they plan to stream the debate when it airs live Tuesday night.

Liberty University -- the conservative religious institution with a mission "to research, promote, and communicate a robust young-Earth creationist view of Earth history" -- will show a live stream of the debate at seven campus locations, including a 1,500-seat auditorium at its main location.

Museum officials believe the actual number will be much higher than the projected total, especially after Wednesday, Feb. 19 when C-Span re-broadcasts the event on radio and TV at 8 p.m. ET.

Immediately following the conclusion of the live debate, Nye and Ham will walk inside the Creation Museum next door to be interviewed for the "Piers Morgan Live" program on CNN for a 9:45 p.m. post-debate analysis. During the 10 p.m. hour and inside the museum, MSNBC TV will conduct a one-on-one interview with Nye.

For the debate, more than 70 credentialed members of the media will converge upon Northern Kentucky. Journalists from news outlets such ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, Scientific American magazine, the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia, Al Jazeera America, The New Yorker and WCPO will be in attendance.

The attention placed on the event has led to an exponential increase in Web traffic for the museum’s website as well as the website of the parent ministry that runs the museum, Answers in Genesis. Officials say their numbers are up 80 percent, totaling about 2 million visits in January alone.

Information on this creation/evolution debate can be found at www.debatelive.org.

© 2014 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 29

donsense writes:

Nye wins because Creationism is a fantasy. Nice story but it starts to fail right about the time Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. The only one and I do mean one that Cain and or Abel can have sex with is still, you guessed it. EVE !
Starts to get a little weird after that.

marcari writes:

in response to donsense:

Nye wins because Creationism is a fantasy. Nice story but it starts to fail right about the time Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. The only one and I do mean one that Cain and or Abel can have sex with is still, you guessed it. EVE !
Starts to get a little weird after that.

Of course Nye wins, the deck is stacked by virtue of the title of the debate "Creationism" which opens the door for people like you to make a very funny point. Intelligent design, put forth most convincingly by Aristotle would be a better topic for debate, but Aristotle is too reasonable and the debate might be properly joined. So, why would anyone go to a debate wherein the winner is assured of his victory because he has some fundamentalist postulating a position that can only be argued from a biblical point of view? Philosophers throughout the ages have offered intelligent design as a reasonable postulate. Aristotle would argue that the scientific premise and the intelligent design premise both have validity as well as holes...a good debate would entail watching the debaters trying to fill the holes.

Heraclitus writes:

There may be some folks out there that sincerely believe in Intelligent Design... motives are often impossible to discern. Many seem to have adopted ID as a wedge issue to get alternative origin stories into our schools.

I'm curious. What does ID say about the presence of Neanderthal DNA in the DNA of Homo sapiens that left Africa long ago? Is this crossbreeding part of the Grand Design?

How about folks like me that have Denisovan DNA?

In case you haven't been keeping up with the news... from the journal "nature" (the international weekly journal of science):

http://www.nature.com/news/modern-hum...

From the article:

"Joshua Akey, a population geneticist at the University of Washington in Seattle who wrote the Science paper with colleague Benjamin Vernot, says that his team found about one-fifth of a Neanderthal genome spread across the publicly available genomes of 665 living Europeans and East Asians. Reich and his team estimate that they could put together about 40% of the Neanderthal genome from the sequences of 1,004 living people that they studied.

The teams looked for Neanderthal genes that were especially common in contemporary humans, a sign that the genes were useful to their new owners. Both groups identified a series of genes involved in the inner workings of cells called keratinocytes, which make up most of the outer layer of human skin and produce hair."

I'm just curious if all I.D. proponents are on-board with this sequence of events... i.e. cross-breeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans being part of the design (evolution) of modern humans?

As for Denisovans:

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2014/0...

From the article...

"Simply put, my DNA is made up of 2.8 percent Neanderthal, an extinct hominid cousin who disappearedfrom Europe and the Middle East about 30,000 years ago, or maybe earlier. My DNA also contains 2.7 percent Denisovan, a recently-discovered hominid cousin that once roamed Asia. In 2008, during a cave excavation in Siberia, paleoanthropologists discovered the well-preserved remains of a Denisovan adult and a young girl who had lived 40,000 years ago."

My genome shows 1.2 % Neanderthal and 3.2% Denisovan, probably from my ancestors coming through the Caucasus.

Heraclitus writes:

And... I'm still curious about the Babel myth... does anyone really believe that story?

cons3rvative writes:

i believe that God created the earth, but it was billions of years ago. in Hebrew the word used for 'day' did not mean 24 hour period so Genesis could have been describing a billion years per day etc..

Heraclitus writes:

in response to cons3rvative:

i believe that God created the earth, but it was billions of years ago. in Hebrew the word used for 'day' did not mean 24 hour period so Genesis could have been describing a billion years per day etc..

Speaking of reading the bible in Hebrew... you should Google the YouTube of Lewis Black and "Creationism". I'd post the link, but he loses patience with people who think the Bible is an explanation of the Big Bang and his language is a bit "riss-kay".

Heraclitus writes:

No one wants to discuss Neanderthal cross-breeding with Homo sapiens. I'll have to remember that.

Heraclitus writes:

And the Catholic point of view is that they're both wrong:

http://www.catholic.org/technology/st...

Heraclitus writes:

And the British point of view:

"Unfortunately, with or without the Nye debate, much of the American population already sees creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution. There isn't a single legitimate research lab in the country studying biblical creation or Noah's flood, but creationism is still influencing public policy and is still being taught in public school science classes.

According to Gallup, nearly half of the country rejects evolution. Forty-Six percent of Americans believe humans were created in their present form, by God, in the last 10,000 years. Over the past 30 years, belief in creationism has remained relatively stable, despite creationism's repeated court losses."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisf...

And the odd thing is that so few people are willing to admit that they're Creationists. Why is that?

marcari writes:

in response to Heraclitus:

There may be some folks out there that sincerely believe in Intelligent Design... motives are often impossible to discern. Many seem to have adopted ID as a wedge issue to get alternative origin stories into our schools.

I'm curious. What does ID say about the presence of Neanderthal DNA in the DNA of Homo sapiens that left Africa long ago? Is this crossbreeding part of the Grand Design?

How about folks like me that have Denisovan DNA?

In case you haven't been keeping up with the news... from the journal "nature" (the international weekly journal of science):

http://www.nature.com/news/modern-hum...

From the article:

"Joshua Akey, a population geneticist at the University of Washington in Seattle who wrote the Science paper with colleague Benjamin Vernot, says that his team found about one-fifth of a Neanderthal genome spread across the publicly available genomes of 665 living Europeans and East Asians. Reich and his team estimate that they could put together about 40% of the Neanderthal genome from the sequences of 1,004 living people that they studied.

The teams looked for Neanderthal genes that were especially common in contemporary humans, a sign that the genes were useful to their new owners. Both groups identified a series of genes involved in the inner workings of cells called keratinocytes, which make up most of the outer layer of human skin and produce hair."

I'm just curious if all I.D. proponents are on-board with this sequence of events... i.e. cross-breeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans being part of the design (evolution) of modern humans?

As for Denisovans:

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2014/0...

From the article...

"Simply put, my DNA is made up of 2.8 percent Neanderthal, an extinct hominid cousin who disappearedfrom Europe and the Middle East about 30,000 years ago, or maybe earlier. My DNA also contains 2.7 percent Denisovan, a recently-discovered hominid cousin that once roamed Asia. In 2008, during a cave excavation in Siberia, paleoanthropologists discovered the well-preserved remains of a Denisovan adult and a young girl who had lived 40,000 years ago."

My genome shows 1.2 % Neanderthal and 3.2% Denisovan, probably from my ancestors coming through the Caucasus.

I'm sure Aristotle was not trying to use ID as a wedge into the public schools. Both Plato and Aristotle contend that the science that claims that something came from nothing without knowing what that something is...that's as debatable as the idea of a "force" i.e., intelligent design. Interjecting fundamentalist religion into the debate is a straw man device...I have lived a very long life and have never met a person who believed the world is six thousand years old. Furthermore, I think ID has a high degree of probability, equal to the idea that something came from nothing, and also think evolution is indisputable. ID and evolution are not necessarily contradictory, since evolution does not explain how life began. Both positions begin with debatable premises.

Beachbaby writes:

"I have lived a very long life and have never met a person who believed the world is six thousand years old. "

That begs the question "Why is it called the "Creation Museum".
The misnomer "Intelligent Design" is just the lip stick put on the pig. It's still a pig.

Heraclitus writes:

in response to Beachbaby:

"I have lived a very long life and have never met a person who believed the world is six thousand years old. "

That begs the question "Why is it called the "Creation Museum".
The misnomer "Intelligent Design" is just the lip stick put on the pig. It's still a pig.

Beachbaby... good response

I have met several people locally who profess to believe that the world is about 6,000 years old. Many say that it's less than 10,000 years old. Some are even STEM graduates, but they belong to churches that say they must believe. Sad

Gallup poll... survey says:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evol...

And, if you really want to see a US Congressman (Republican, of course) confirm that the "world" is about 9,000 years old, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3M...

A U.S. Congressman, no less. What do you think of that? Embarrassing!

And if you want to meet these Creationists in person, wait until the School Board has another go at the topic of evolution. Anyone that hasn't met a Young Earth Creationist must lead a sheltered life or never talked to a Republican Congressman... ask any of them..

Heraclitus writes:

in response to marcari:

I'm sure Aristotle was not trying to use ID as a wedge into the public schools. Both Plato and Aristotle contend that the science that claims that something came from nothing without knowing what that something is...that's as debatable as the idea of a "force" i.e., intelligent design. Interjecting fundamentalist religion into the debate is a straw man device...I have lived a very long life and have never met a person who believed the world is six thousand years old. Furthermore, I think ID has a high degree of probability, equal to the idea that something came from nothing, and also think evolution is indisputable. ID and evolution are not necessarily contradictory, since evolution does not explain how life began. Both positions begin with debatable premises.

What makes you think something came from nothing? Much of modern cosmology points to cyclic universes or multiverses... you know... always was, always will be:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S...

And...

http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Proje...'s%20mutliverse.html

Who needs a designer?

But I'm still curious... where does crossbreeding with Neanderthals fit into Intelligent Design? I assume they are they part of the grand plan?

Heraclitus writes:

Here's an interesting one:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/...

"Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory"

"Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many."

Beachbaby writes:

in response to Heraclitus:

What makes you think something came from nothing? Much of modern cosmology points to cyclic universes or multiverses... you know... always was, always will be:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S...

And...

http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Proje...'s%20mutliverse.html

Who needs a designer?

But I'm still curious... where does crossbreeding with Neanderthals fit into Intelligent Design? I assume they are they part of the grand plan?

Personally, I find the recent discoveries of cross breeding by the Neanderthals much more fascinating and plausible than "and god created Adam and Eve".

I think that the more we learn about evolution and the successes and failures in the process, the randomness of our existence will become more and more evident and the notion of some supreme being being responsible for its design less and less defendable.

I never understood why people are so determined to stick to a final answer of cause and effect when it is apparent that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding the world around us.

Heraclitus writes:

in response to Beachbaby:

Personally, I find the recent discoveries of cross breeding by the Neanderthals much more fascinating and plausible than "and god created Adam and Eve".

I think that the more we learn about evolution and the successes and failures in the process, the randomness of our existence will become more and more evident and the notion of some supreme being being responsible for its design less and less defendable.

I never understood why people are so determined to stick to a final answer of cause and effect when it is apparent that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding the world around us.

Here's why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3M...

In their own words... the Republican agenda.

marcari writes:

in response to Heraclitus:

Beachbaby... good response

I have met several people locally who profess to believe that the world is about 6,000 years old. Many say that it's less than 10,000 years old. Some are even STEM graduates, but they belong to churches that say they must believe. Sad

Gallup poll... survey says:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evol...

And, if you really want to see a US Congressman (Republican, of course) confirm that the "world" is about 9,000 years old, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3M...

A U.S. Congressman, no less. What do you think of that? Embarrassing!

And if you want to meet these Creationists in person, wait until the School Board has another go at the topic of evolution. Anyone that hasn't met a Young Earth Creationist must lead a sheltered life or never talked to a Republican Congressman... ask any of them..

Heraclitus: I cite Plato and Aristotle, you cite Beachbaby. If you know several people who think the world is 6,000 years old you are hanging out with the wrong crowd. Wow...you cite a gallup poll. Then you cite a s----- Republican. I could write a book about the s----- things Joe Biden has said. Also, remember "you have to vote for the bill to find out what is in it", or "I did not have sex with that woman" even when his DNA was all over her dress. Or, "not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS" while six investigations into alleged corruption have not been completed. My point... anyone can find anecdotal instances which prove nothing, and you are very good at that. I do not claim that Plato and Aristotle have cornered the market on truth, but at least I have read them, debated them, and found their premises to be worthy of discussion as are some of those in opposition. In short, I am very skeptical of people who not only know they have the truth, but are dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them. Perhaps you should read another Greek who said "The more I know, the more I realize how much I don't know."

titanbite writes:

There is no logical reason to believe in the supernatural, none, nada, zilch.

Oddly, some choose to forgo science and accept the superstitious beliefs of 2,000 year old books, funny, everything in that book was already known by man before the book was written.

By man.

People, religion is a HUMAN invention, not the other way around.

titanbite writes:

in response to marcari:

Heraclitus: I cite Plato and Aristotle, you cite Beachbaby. If you know several people who think the world is 6,000 years old you are hanging out with the wrong crowd. Wow...you cite a gallup poll. Then you cite a s----- Republican. I could write a book about the s----- things Joe Biden has said. Also, remember "you have to vote for the bill to find out what is in it", or "I did not have sex with that woman" even when his DNA was all over her dress. Or, "not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS" while six investigations into alleged corruption have not been completed. My point... anyone can find anecdotal instances which prove nothing, and you are very good at that. I do not claim that Plato and Aristotle have cornered the market on truth, but at least I have read them, debated them, and found their premises to be worthy of discussion as are some of those in opposition. In short, I am very skeptical of people who not only know they have the truth, but are dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them. Perhaps you should read another Greek who said "The more I know, the more I realize how much I don't know."

You,"debated them ", interesting, of course, debating Plato and Aristotle must have been quite an undertaking, but Socrates, now THAT must have been some debate!

LOL!

titanbite writes:

The main reasoning behind the believer's anger when their superstitions are exposed is due to the fact that most believers see THEMSELVES as the god they worship.

Poke fun at their god and you're poking fun directly at THEM.

marcari writes:

in response to titanbite:

You,"debated them ", interesting, of course, debating Plato and Aristotle must have been quite an undertaking, but Socrates, now THAT must have been some debate!

LOL!

The ideas, the ideas, the ideas. That's what one debates. And none of the ideas I speak of are religious...what is your hang up?

Heraclitus writes:

in response to marcari:

Heraclitus: I cite Plato and Aristotle, you cite Beachbaby. If you know several people who think the world is 6,000 years old you are hanging out with the wrong crowd. Wow...you cite a gallup poll. Then you cite a s----- Republican. I could write a book about the s----- things Joe Biden has said. Also, remember "you have to vote for the bill to find out what is in it", or "I did not have sex with that woman" even when his DNA was all over her dress. Or, "not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS" while six investigations into alleged corruption have not been completed. My point... anyone can find anecdotal instances which prove nothing, and you are very good at that. I do not claim that Plato and Aristotle have cornered the market on truth, but at least I have read them, debated them, and found their premises to be worthy of discussion as are some of those in opposition. In short, I am very skeptical of people who not only know they have the truth, but are dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them. Perhaps you should read another Greek who said "The more I know, the more I realize how much I don't know."

Marcari... I didn't think anyone still believed in the Aristotelian Universe. Good for you. Plato and Socrates? Wasn't Socrates that Greek guy from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? Have any of them been published in "Science" or "nature"?

I like the Greek that said "“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” It sums up evolution perfectly... everything changes... constantly... erratically... sporadically... with no need for a "Designer".

As to the concept of a prime mover... You chose to ignore my comment about the cyclic universe and multiverse. No problem, but maybe the multiverse always was and always will be and you don't need an intelligent designer.

As to the origin of life... try to get a copy of the 17 January issue of "Science"? In the Biochemistry section is an article titled "Many Paths to the Origin of Life"

From the article:

"The origin of life remains a daunting mystery in part because rather than knowing too little, we increasingly know about too many possible mechanisms that might have led to the self-sustaining replication of nucleic acids and the cellularization of genetic material that is the basis of life on Earth."

It's only a matter of time before the Gaps in knowledge become so small that there's no room for the Prime Mover to hide in them.

Any thoughts on why Neanderthals and Denisovans and Heidelbergensis crossbred with Homo sapiens? I'll bet it was part of the grand "Design"?

Heraclitus writes:

in response to marcari:

I'm sure Aristotle was not trying to use ID as a wedge into the public schools. Both Plato and Aristotle contend that the science that claims that something came from nothing without knowing what that something is...that's as debatable as the idea of a "force" i.e., intelligent design. Interjecting fundamentalist religion into the debate is a straw man device...I have lived a very long life and have never met a person who believed the world is six thousand years old. Furthermore, I think ID has a high degree of probability, equal to the idea that something came from nothing, and also think evolution is indisputable. ID and evolution are not necessarily contradictory, since evolution does not explain how life began. Both positions begin with debatable premises.

P.S. You said "...I have lived a very long life and have never met a person who believed the world is six thousand years old."

So I decided to show you one... a U.S. Congressman. He's not the only one, apparently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12...

"Paul Broun Expects To Remain On Science Committee After Calling Science 'Lies' From 'The Pit Of Hell'"...... Fascinating..... Republicans?

You must not have lived in Collier County when they were discussing what to teach in Science classes about 20 years ago. The letters to the editor and the calls in to the talk shows and even the talk show hosts were Young Earth Creationists. It was an interesting time... wish you were here.

Call the local Conservative talk show and ask them how old the earth is.

Heraclitus writes:

Looks like Broun is still on the "Science" Committee... surprise, surprise...

http://science.house.gov/about/member...

Heraclitus writes:

Marcari... does Intelligent Design have any periodicals like "Science" or "nature" that contain articles or peer-reviewed reports detailing the latest findings in I.D.?

I'd really like to subscribe to one to get another point of view.

Or maybe you could direct me to a website run by a University or College that shows the latest findings in I.D.?... like these about evolution...

Like this one from Berkeley:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Or this one from U. of Michigan:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/glo...

Or this one from Indiana:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/

It teaches you how to teach evolution:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/teach...

Heraclitus writes:

Interesting article from 1997:

"The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory"

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/3/elusive-sc...

From the article:

"If intelligent design theory is a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, then scientists must be using it to devise tests and to interpret patterns in the data they collect. What sense would there be in presenting an idea as a scientific theory if the idea were not actually used by working scientists? The importance of a scientific theory is not related to its popularity with the general public, but to its utility in directing research and explaining observations within a particular field of study (Kuhn 1962). For example, millions of people read their horoscopes each day, but astrology plays no role in directing research by astronomers or psychologists."

The numbers in Table 1 seem to answer my question above. Does anyone... Marcari?... have an update on this?

Beachbaby writes:

in response to Heraclitus:

Interesting article from 1997:

"The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory"

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/3/elusive-sc...

From the article:

"If intelligent design theory is a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, then scientists must be using it to devise tests and to interpret patterns in the data they collect. What sense would there be in presenting an idea as a scientific theory if the idea were not actually used by working scientists? The importance of a scientific theory is not related to its popularity with the general public, but to its utility in directing research and explaining observations within a particular field of study (Kuhn 1962). For example, millions of people read their horoscopes each day, but astrology plays no role in directing research by astronomers or psychologists."

The numbers in Table 1 seem to answer my question above. Does anyone... Marcari?... have an update on this?

Thank you Heraclitus. Great article. It looks like Marcari has given up on his argument: "But Aristotle and Plato said...."

Like I said before, Intelligent Design is nothing more than a euphemism for Creationism. It makes it so much more palatable for right wing conservatives to push religion into class rooms and give their beliefs the mantle of "science" when it is anything but.

Ah yes, the dumbing of America continues.....

Heraclitus writes:

in response to Beachbaby:

Thank you Heraclitus. Great article. It looks like Marcari has given up on his argument: "But Aristotle and Plato said...."

Like I said before, Intelligent Design is nothing more than a euphemism for Creationism. It makes it so much more palatable for right wing conservatives to push religion into class rooms and give their beliefs the mantle of "science" when it is anything but.

Ah yes, the dumbing of America continues.....

The amazing thing is that some of them, like Rep. Broun, either haven't gotten the message to "convert" to I.D, or are, as Christians, truly honest and guileless, or... and this is what I think... they realize that the Bible and I.D. can't be reconciled no matter how many mental machinations they go through (the Babel story has no connection to I.D., it is a myth), and that I.D. is the start of the slippery slope of accepting the entire Bible as myth and not "gospel".

Heraclitus writes:

When I said above that the Bible is myth, that's an oversimplification:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/...

"First, some basic definitions. When we speak of the Bible we are referring primarily to the collection of ancient writings long known as the Old Testament — now commonly referred to by scholars as the Hebrew Bible. It is a collection of legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy, and history, written almost entirely in Hebrew (with a few passages in a variant Semitic dialect called Aramaic, which came to be the lingua franca of the Middle East after 600 BCE). It consists of thirty-nine books that were originally divided by subject or author — or in the case of longer books like 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, by the standard length of parchment or papyrus rolls. The Hebrew Bible is the central scripture of Judaism, the first part of Christianity's canon, and a rich source of allusions and ethical teachings in Islam conveyed through the text of the Quran."

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features