Anyone got a problem with their teeth being way too long?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.

The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.

Why?

Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.

I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.

Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.

How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?

Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.

Interesting.

I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?

It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.

I think that I am in agreement with Nigel, BECAUSE:  The wedge the creationists try to use is "teach the debate".  When you argue with them on television, you are giving them credibility they don't deserve.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.

The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.

Why?

Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.

I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.

Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.

How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?

Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.

Interesting.

I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?

It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.

I think that I am in agreement with Nigel, BECAUSE:  The wedge the creationists try to use is "teach the debate".  When you argue with them on television, you are giving them credibility they don't deserve.

If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Nigel, your point is undeniably true but I can't help thinking it's also necessary or maybe not necessary but serving a useful purpose nonetheless. The mob only really responds to this kind of donkey fucking act. The whole - teaching creationism to kids - thing is something "we" want to toss out. Democracy dictates we need the support of the mob. From their point of view, it's monster truck politics all the way down. If the witchdoctor is the only voice they hear...

Who is the mob?  Because used that way, it sounds like "sheeple".  While it is not popular or ego-boosting to believe, the fact is that most people do think for themselves and do look at other viewpoints than their current one - for good or for ill.

We are not the only humans capable of rational thought.  Nor are atheists, as a group.

I dunno who the mob are but pretending they don't factor in a huge way is pretending there's nothing wrong with the current system. Everyone gets lied to. Most don't seem to figure that out. Am I wrong in thinking whole states in the USA are teaching kids that hokey shit?

Every generation, with occasional blips, the number of creationists drops.  So the obvious thing to do is grab the axe and go open the goose to get ALL the golden eggs right now.

And yes, you are incorrect.  State weirdos try every 10 years or so, to put creationism in schools, and every time it is ruthlessly struck down by the courts.  It's more or less a continuous battle, and will be until all the people raised in the 1980s (the last blip) are dead.

It doesn't look that way to me:

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?

Yes, and for exactly the same reason.

And that issue has sort of corrected itself, with the recent measles outbreaks in CT, CA, and NY.  Within a few years, you won't hear anti-vaxxers anymore.  Give them credibility and you might.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nigel, your point is undeniably true but I can't help thinking it's also necessary or maybe not necessary but serving a useful purpose nonetheless. The mob only really responds to this kind of donkey fucking act. The whole - teaching creationism to kids - thing is something "we" want to toss out. Democracy dictates we need the support of the mob. From their point of view, it's monster truck politics all the way down. If the witchdoctor is the only voice they hear...

Who is the mob?  Because used that way, it sounds like "sheeple".  While it is not popular or ego-boosting to believe, the fact is that most people do think for themselves and do look at other viewpoints than their current one - for good or for ill.

We are not the only humans capable of rational thought.  Nor are atheists, as a group.

I dunno who the mob are but pretending they don't factor in a huge way is pretending there's nothing wrong with the current system. Everyone gets lied to. Most don't seem to figure that out. Am I wrong in thinking whole states in the USA are teaching kids that hokey shit?

Every generation, with occasional blips, the number of creationists drops.  So the obvious thing to do is grab the axe and go open the goose to get ALL the golden eggs right now.

And yes, you are incorrect.  State weirdos try every 10 years or so, to put creationism in schools, and every time it is ruthlessly struck down by the courts.  It's more or less a continuous battle, and will be until all the people raised in the 1980s (the last blip) are dead.

Broken jpg.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?

Yes, and for exactly the same reason.

And that issue has sort of corrected itself, with the recent measles outbreaks in CT, CA, and NY.  Within a few years, you won't hear anti-vaxxers anymore.  Give them credibility and you might.

So if we wait long enough, the climate change thing will sort itself out too, eh?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Okay, it's fixed.

Not sure I trust Gallup after 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Check the section for America, halfway down the page.  You'll also note that American is a statistical abberation in this regard, as Pent suggested...But that the numbers are a little different when viewed from a Pew Poll. 

Now, compare this with America in 1986, 1956, and 1936.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If the debate was about vaccinations would you feel the same way?

Yes, and for exactly the same reason.

And that issue has sort of corrected itself, with the recent measles outbreaks in CT, CA, and NY.  Within a few years, you won't hear anti-vaxxers anymore.  Give them credibility and you might.

So if we wait long enough, the climate change thing will sort itself out too, eh?

I'd say that's a different case, the stakes being far higher...And the fact that there is a deadline associated with climate change.  Apples and oranges.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I gotta ask you and Pent, though:  What is your solution to weird beliefs, such as young earth creationism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Okay, it's fixed.

Not sure I trust Gallup after 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Check the section for America, halfway down the page.  You'll also note that American is a statistical abberation in this regard, as Pent suggested...But that the numbers are a little different when viewed from a Pew Poll. 

Now, compare this with America in 1986, 1956, and 1936.

Thanks!

I'll give that a harder look.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Worth looking at:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-america-evolving-on-evolution/

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, if you look at the graph you provided, the belief in non-guided evolution shows a steady increase, while the belief in creationism's increase is exacly mirrored by the decrease in the belief of guided evolution:  That is to say, the intelligent design geeks gave up and went back to the cave.

So, over 30 years, a ~ 7% increase in rationalism.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.

The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.

Why?

Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.

I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.

Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.

How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?

<The number of people polarized> +1.

Sure. Or if it had done anything at all for the advancement of science, and was not just a slightly catfighty publicity stunt that felt cheap and tacky and reduced scientific presentation to the level of political debate.

Ooh, I hadn't considered that last point, bolded by me.  And, it's an excellent one.  Hm.  It really does.  Damn you Nigel, and your smarts! Making me rethink my positions!   

Aw, thanks!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.

The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.

Why?

Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.

I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.

Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.

How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?

Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.

Interesting.

I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?

It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.

Oh, well certainly if you just keep after me about it, my respect-o-meter for Nye will creep back up into the blue.

It's that old adage about what happens when you wrestle with pigs. YOU don't have to feel the same way about it, but how you feel about it really has no bearing on how I feel about it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It kind of bummed me out, because I respected Bill Nye a lot before this. Now... less so.

The people who really loved it seem mostly to be that exact type of insecure Atheist I have talked about before; the ones who can't just be OK with what they believe, but need to shit on others in order to enable them to feel superior.

Why?

Bill Nye would be the last person to shit on anyone, for anything.

I'm not sure this whole guilt by association thing is fair to Nye or the bulk of his fans.

Why? Because the "debate" was contrived and can only serve to strengthen the positions of both those who are smug Atheists and those who are self-righteous Creationists. It did nothing to change minds or promote scientific thinking, but rather served to polarize people further. It was a cringing babyshambles; a scientist engaging with a fanatic in an argument over a fairy tale.

How many people's mind would have to change for the debate to be worthwhile?

Doesn't matter to me. Nor does your opinion on whether my opinion of Nye should have been boosted or lowered.

Interesting.

I find the idea that scientists should avoid speaking with Creationists publicly is misguided. What other topics should we avoid talking about for the same rationale? Vaccines? Faith healing? Abortion?

It's one thing to reject people for their shitty tone in a discussion--which didn't even happen here, Nye was kind and generous--it's another to reject the discussion wholesale. And I think that's a mistake.

I think that I am in agreement with Nigel, BECAUSE:  The wedge the creationists try to use is "teach the debate".  When you argue with them on television, you are giving them credibility they don't deserve.

...you both get muddy, and the pig likes it.