I don't think this should be happening. I didn't make that decision and I wouldn't ever debate a creationist. But since it is, it's always important to know what your enemy is up to.
Hey, I'm with you man. But these 5 year olds have challenged political policy and education throughout history, and they still continue to. I don't need to know about why some people don't believe the holocaust happened because they aren't threatening education in North America, but these people are, so I need to know about them.
Fair, yeah. I was just having this discussion with my roommate ... it's unclear to me what we can really do about creationists, or how much of an impact they're having. Also, you can't really change someone's mind just by telling them they're wrong. So I dunno.
Definitely agree. This debate was ridiculous and proved nothing. It shouldn't have happened. But now it's transcribed so you can see the ridiculousness.
Had time to view about half of it. The transcription was helpful. The ridiculous nature reminds me of helping some my 8th graders learn about math topics they just aren't ready to hear yet. Many of them make strides and put the facts together. Most every class will have kids that cannot see the Pythagorean Theorem at this point in their development, but given time some will make sense of it, or at least see the value in it.
Two types of people hear the debate: closed-minded and open-minded. The closed-minded don't matter, they're not changing their minds. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I find it hard to imagine an open-minded Evolutionist hearing the debate and thinking "This is a debate of equals, Creationism must be a valid position." Ham's arguments are just too fallacious. But suppose I'm an open-minded, rational Creationist. I'm a kid, or maybe a twenty-something, in Tennessee. I grew up learning Creationism from my church and school. I'm not about to buy a Dawkins book; I have too much else to read, and I "know" Creationism is true anyway. But suppose I hear the debate. Nye's arguments on the whole make a lot more sense than Ham's, even if I believe Ham's theistic tangents. So the seed of skepticism is planted. From a rational perspective, I understand the "don't acknowledge them" argument. But from a sociological perspective, I really think this did more good than harm. By the way, part of the reason I think the debate was good for those reasons, is because I was that kid.I don't think this should be happening
I think the debate was a good thing for science, and here's why:
So the seed of skepticism is planted.
That's what I think is so important about this. It makes those with any sort of open minded view who watched to at least question what may have been spoon fed to them their entire lives.