Bill Nye to debate with Ken Ham

This event has already received a lot of press, but I should mention it here just in case anyone isn't aware of it: On February 4th, Bill Nye (yes, that Bill Nye) will be holding a public debate with Answers in Genesis' president Ken Ham.  The debate will take place at the Creation Museum, and will be about whether or not evolution is a viable biological model.

Even though Bill Nye has the facts on his side in this debate, many people have expressed concern that he's still going to do poorly.  I share this concern.  I know from experience that debating with creationists requires more than just a familiarity with evolutionary science in general—it also requires a familiarity with the other side's arguments, and the arguments used by sophisticated creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis are often quite technical.  Ken Ham has devoted most of his career to arguing against the evolutionary perspective, while Bill Nye does not have a similar amount of experience arguing against creationism.

This video, a 2003 debate between Kent Hovind and Matthew Rainbow, should be a cautionary tale for anyone who believes that knowledge about evolutionary biology is the only thing needed to win a debate against a creationist.  This video is linked to much more often by creationists than by supporters of evolution, and it's easy to understand why.  Despite Rainbow's obvious knowledge about biology, he clearly was not as well-prepared for the debate as Hovind was, and watching the video it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was Hovind who presented his ideas more effectively.

Some people commenting on the upcoming debate, such as Jerry Coyne, have argued that it doesn't really matter whether Bill Nye or Ken Ham ends up being the winner, because the scientific question of evolution versus creationism is already settled.  But this perspective seems to overlook the debate's real purpose.  The reason Bill Nye agreed to this debate isn't because evolution needs additional scientific support; it's because around half of people living in the United States are creationists.  Many creationists will be watching this debate, and if Bill Nye argues his case effectively, he will have a greater opportunity to win their support than anyone has had in a long time.  On the other hand, if Ken Ham is able to effectively counter Nye's arguments, people watching the debate who have not yet made up their minds will be far less likely to eventually accept evolution.

As someone who used to work for a natural history museum that was perpetually short on money, I have an especially intimate understanding of the fact that science does not operate in a vacuum.  In the long term, the survival of any field of science depends on its public support.  The children and teenagers who will be watching this debate are the same people who, in thirty of forty years, will be deciding whether to donate money to fund evolutionary biologists' research; who will be serving on school boards that decide whether or not to include evolution in their curriculums; or who will be serving on juries when curriculums that include creationism are challenged in the courts.  It's entirely possible for an area of research to simply be starved when its public support runs dry, regardless of its scientific status, as happened to research about the heritability of intelligence in the 1950s and 1960s.

About a month ago, I offered Bill Nye some of the unpublished material from Emily's and my book, which is focused on criticizing the arguments used by Answers in Genesis.  However, he never got back to me, and someone else I know who's more closely involved in the debate has told me that Bill Nye isn't interested in receiving help from outsiders.  I apparently don't have the opportunity to offer him help myself, so all I can do is hope he's aware of how high the stakes are in his debate, and what the consequences will be if he fails.