5 Tips for Debating a Creationist like Ken Ham

Bill Nye is debating Ken Ham on Tuesday and it's a REALLY GREAT IDEA

[MrShysterme]

After watching the debate, I think that Nye wiped the floor with Ham so badly that perhaps Nye changed some minds.

[NickNakorn]

I've just got around to wasting 2.5 hours of my life to watch the debate in full. By the way, I've not seen either speak before. Coming from the UK, where our exposure to creationism is thankfully slight yet sadly growing, I was struck mostly by the crude methods by which Ham proposes we buy into the creationist story and the sophistication of his delivery of it. I can see that people who have a limited science education or perhaps an inability to hold several ideas in their head at once might well be swayed. But, while it's a waste of time to debate creationists (they just add rhetoric and God when anything gets remotely tricky) I'm also amazed they bother to debate scientists as, according to Ham, nothing will change his mind and God is infinite and all seeing and all knowing. If he really believed his own nonsense he would not bother to debate anyone or set up his crazy organisation. I think the thinking behind creationism is much, much simpler; like all religion, it's really all about power, money and control over others. Debate them? No. Oppose them? absolutely.

[tinofaygo]

My advice for watching this video....JUST DON'T DO IT!

Seriously I doubt you understand WHY this debate even took place. You should realize that it is not about winning or losing but putting ideas into peoples minds that normally wouldn't get the chance to spread. Nye had a lot of convincing arguments and even some of my christian friends are looking into or have looked into evolution a bit more or have considered that maybe just maybe the earth was not created in 7 days. I tend to debate quite a few creationists and I don't do it for them. I do it for the people that are listening, watching or reading whatever we discuss. 

[Jelllyfishstingz]

While he may never convince people like ken ham and the debate alone may never change peoples mind this particular debate did stir up a lot of conversation. One of the conversations was between me and my Southern Baptist mother. While she still belives in god, she now accepts the world is more then 6 thousand years old and is starting to give evolution some thought. Most importantly it has helped change her view towards her homosexual daughter who can now feel somewhat comfortable in her own home. The best part was she ever apologized for sending her own daughter to one of those pray the gay away camps.

[topologyrob]

In the 1980s, Ken Ham came to my school in Brisbane when I was in grade 11 (which was pretty ridiculous that he got to do that) and I disagreed with him - he was very angry as a result. I actually saw him at a public pool in Brisbane maybe 7 years ago (when this video came out) and felt like going over and arguing with him, but it would have only made things worse, and I would have been being an arsehole. So, good advice here from Rebecca.

[DeathToLiberalism]

Creationists should be ignored. Mockery is optional.

[AntiYourFacePhD]

Every time I see Ken Ham, I immediately think of an old Bill Hicks quote:

"You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?"

[nicholasflamel]

Well, I called it, even before the debate happened. Since the debate, one of the teachers in my high school has taken it upon himself to spread the word of the "truth" of creationism. He has been giving creationist lectures, showing Ken's videos, telling the students to bring it up in Biology class, and throwing in a little extra climate change denial to boot. We had to go complain to the admin that he was undermining the state approved science curriculum. I love Bill, but if I ever see him again I'm gonna give him a nuclear wedgie for this one. 

[dowddash]

I'm glad Bill did the debate. It was debates like this when I was younger that convinced me how full of shit creationists are, especially Hitchens debates.

[smof]

she's wrong and is missing an obvious reason. You don't debate a creationist to convert them directly. You do it to help the people in the crowd who are unsure of their position and after hearing you debunk the creationists claims will finally give up religion and embrace the world as it really is. That is why you debate them, and why you should continue to do it. 

[GTSuzukaTimeTrials]

If the Bible is proof of God, then comic books are proof of Superman and Batman.

[SotiCoto]

Heh... I like this one...

BUT I figured the trick to it. One cannot debate science with a creationist because they don't understand it. SO... one has to wonder what they do understand... and what they value in an argument... and turn that against them.

Unfortunately, this usually involves doing only things we learn NOT to do in rational debates. You generally have to make as many logical fallacies as possible. Much like a barking contest with a dog, the point is to make a big show and lots of noise until they back down. In the end, you haven't proven you're right... but you can establish the pecking order. THAT makes them more likely to listen... because they're fuckin stupid like that.

[nanoday]

No, discussion and debate are always better than nothing.

Of course it matters how compelling Bill Nye's arguments are. Think about how large an audience he was able to reach by doing a televised debate. It's easily worth so much more than $22, 000. Do you honestly think any amount of money can make the creationist argument more compelling?

Anybody who would prefer to ignore dissent than to face it is choosing ignorance. 

[curiousgeorge]

Bill Nye didn't take your advice, except for #5, but seemed to kick ass anyway.
 I think the publicity that he garnered did wonders for his rep !
  ( and His exposure on TV )
That lousy debate fee won't save the museum anyway ....

[jetset]

debating Christians is easy.. ..this lady seems sad .. she's kinda like liz lemon

[DaithiDublin]

Yeah, never debate with someone who doesn't agree with you! Good plan.
The real lasting benefit of this debate is not going to be limited to those present. It will be in the unpicking of Ham's points _after the fact_. It will be in the media coverage _after the fact_. All the benefits will be in the review, when Ham's faulty and dishonest tactics will be placed under scrutiny. Leaving these chumps to blather to each other is not an effective strategy. Telling people they shouldn't debate is nonsense. Prohibition doesn't work.

[EricShelton]

Following your advice, nobody ever would have taken the time to educate and de-convert me from fundamentalist christianity. So I'm glad there are people who _don't_ listen to your advice. :P

[uncleanunicorn]

I get it but someone has to do something to reach Ham's deluded followers, those that perhaps could not be reached by traditional science programming. I for one applaud Nye' s effort.

[Phlebas]

Debates in general seem like a bad way to sway people; it's a format that puts more value on rhetorical skills than careful presentation of the evidence and arguments.

[allanwood]

As an Australian I apologise for letting Ken Ham escape from our crocodile feeding program. Please send him back as we still have ummm plans for him.