[mulmen]

He also provided a platform to legitimize creationism by debating it as if it is a valid explanation of how the world came to be. I understand the desire to promote debate but I think he fell into the false balance trap.

He did a great deal to advance STEM in the millennial generation which should not be understated but nobody is faultless. He is a great educator but I question if he really knows how best to use his platform.

[burnte]

Bill came right out and stated he understood that argument, but instead preferred to take that opportunity to talk directly to the audience. He didn't take Ken Hamm seriously, and didn't really promote debate. Instead he spent most of the time trying to talk to the impressionable members of the viewing audience, using his chance to talk to them in a rare unfiltered moment. He saw a chance to exploit their desire for a legitimizing debate to instead undermine their hold on younger people in the audience.

[mulmen]

I know what he said and I watched the debate. I'm aware of what his intent was, I just question the efficacy.

[sillysaurus3]

You're just as far in the opposite direction, though.

When people have strange beliefs, the best way to deal with the situation is usually to talk to them on the same level, as grownups with valid beliefs. Otherwise you change no one's mind.

If we dig through your brain, we'd probably turn up a few questionable beliefs of your own. Most people just aren't that transparent.

[wpietri]

Ardent creationists are not just people with strange beliefs. They are people who have built their lives around promoting and defending harmfully bad ideas.

If you have evidence that debating them helps, I look forward to seeing it. But from what I've seen, a credible person sharing a stage with a loon elevates the loon. Treating nonsense as sense devalues sense.

[mulmen]

I'm not saying we should refuse to debate in all cases. There are not always exactly two sides and just because someone comes up with a crazy idea does not mean we should spend energy arguing with them.

Yes, talking and educating people is an important endeavor and one that Bill Nye has proven to be well suited. However, education and debate are not the same thing and it is easy to legitimize dangerous ideas by putting them on an equal footing with proven concepts in the context of a debate.

I have all kinda of crazy beliefs, many that I probably can't even identify myself. That doesn't mean I should waste an expert's time with debate.

[abrown28]

a) The debate is happening whether Bill Nye takes part or not.

b) If proponents of proposition A are unwilling to debate proponents of proposition B then proponents of A will be look like they don't believe in their proposition. You need to be willing to defend your beliefs.

c) Debating someone does not legitimize their proposition. I believe you are legitimizing their proposition if you refuse to debate them.

[KGIII]

Arguably, at some point debate becomes futile. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

[abrown28]

I agree you will almost never debate your opponent into a different point of view but you can change the beliefs of the audience sometimes.

For instance I don't mind if you change your opinion on the merit of debating creationists but I'm hoping to sway anyone else that reads this to my point of view.

[KGIII]

Yeah, at some point I no longer have time or energy for that. I wish you luck, though!

You may be able to change some audience views but you're more dedicated than I. I've tried reason. I am a scientist. I have explained scientific method and had so many bizarre responses that I guess I've just learned to not engage when people demonstrate willful ignorance.

Honestly, it's not even always from the people you expect. Not that long ago, someone was telling me that sea levels were going to rise by 54' by 2050 and that it was 'a proven science fact.' I gave them a whole bunch of data and citations but I'm a mathematician and not a climate scientist - thus they decided I was an uninformed liar and declared themselves the victor.

I was pretty baffled by that one, actually. I'm really certain that AGW is a serious problem. I'm also really certain the sea isn't going to rise that much by 2050. I know, because I read the research and understand it well enough.

I don't know... Maybe I'm jaded and disillusioned.

[mulmen]

You're falling in to the same trap I think Bill Nye fell into. There are not always precisely two equally valid opinions. Forcing debate to fit the assumption that exactly two perspectives are equally valid perpetuates the creation of baseless theories for the purpose of debate itself. See: cable news.