You’ll recall the heavily viewed Ham/Nye Creation/Evolution debate from last year, still available on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Well it turns out a California teacher wanting to show the debate in his class (after all, scientific debate was and still is an important part of science, is it not?) and was BANNED from doing so! This was alleged as an attempt to “sneak creationism” into the classroom.
Hat-tip to Teno Groppi http://www.genesisevidence.org/ who brought this article to my attention, with what I think is a very valid observation: If the evolutionists really thought that Nye had won the debate, they would be happy to show the video in the classrooms.
While I personally felt that Nye did win the debate, I would not say it was by a landslide, and (as I pointed out on Genesis Week https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWLzj_dt1Jg) it was certainly not because Nye was correct! Nye was obviously and gloriously ignorant on so many things, and made so many glaring errors of fact, that it took a LOT of work to address it all and keep the show under the 28-1/2 minute time limit. In fact, I left a lot of information out, some of which was addressed in a follow up show in the mailbag. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NplUzM_kwF4, starting at the 23:00 mark with the question from Josef)
So why ban a teacher from showing the debate in class? Because the anti-theists (such as the National Center for Science Eradication…er…..Education) are desperate to avoid any scrutiny of evolution. Why? Because evolution crumbles under even light scientific scrutiny – and they know it. Creationists welcome scrutiny. The Apostle Paul said to “test ALL things.” (1 Thess 5:21) I agree with him. Let’s test everything – creation, evolution, intelligent design – let’s test them all and see which one stands under scientific scrutiny. When was the last time you saw a physicist demanding that teachers be banned from showing any videos of debate over his theory? When was the last time a biologist solicited school policy to block any questioning of his scientific theory or discovery? It never happens. Evolution is the only theory requiring protection from scrutiny, soliciting that protection from policies and laws. It’s ludicrous and an astonishing act of anti-science played out in our schools virtually every day.
By the way – the courts have never deemed it “illegal” to teach even young earth creationism is schools. As long as the teaching does not promote nor refute any one religion, it’s a-okay.
You can catch my responses to the Ham/Nye debate in two Genesis Week Episodes:
Starting at the 23:00 mark, the question from “Josef in Alberta”:
What do you think? You think the debate should be shown in schools? Defend your position!
No, the video should not be allowed in schools. And neither should a Christian send their kids to a godless institution.
One teacher was banned from showing the debate video because he was trying to sneak creationism into science lessons. This decision has nothing to do with who ‘won’ the debate as has apparently been claimed by someone called Teno Groppi (Nye has claimed that he ‘bested’ Ham whereas Ham has never claimed the reverse, though I’m sure he would have liked to have been able to do so had he performed better and not avoided the precise debate topic for much of the evening).
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/ca-teacher-banned-from-using-bill-nyeken-ham-evolution-debate-to-sneak-creationism-into-classroom/
(No evidence that the authors of this article did not want readers to watch the debate – if they had not already done so.)
And the extremist YEC propaganda blogger Bob Sorensen – citing this blog post – is also making far-fetched claims on facebook: “How do leftists and anti-creationists deal with things they don’t like? Why, BAN them whenever possible! Ian Juby has an article on the banning of the Ham-Nye debate. But I thought they were all confident that Nye won it. Not hardly! -CBB”
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
Back to your blog. “So why ban a teacher from showing the debate in class? Because the anti-theists (such as the National Center for Science Eradication…er…..Education) are desperate to avoid any scrutiny of evolution. Why? Because evolution crumbles under even light scientific scrutiny – and they know it.” The debate was not even about the theory of evolution. In case you have forgotten. The debate topic was: ‘Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern, Scientific Era?’ Ham’s performance underlined for many that the answer to that question is ‘no’. He could not dismiss all the evidence for an old Earth that Nye presented.
But if such ‘scrutiny’ that you mention is disastrous for evolution, Ham seems unable to have brought that scrutiny to bear on the night (even though evolution was not the debate topic, ‘showing’ evolution to be ‘bankrupt’ could be considered a trump card when asserting that one’s creation model must be ‘viable’).
PS If I try to save this text by cutting and pasting, your website does not let me do so. All I get is ‘Originally at: Ham/Nye debate BANNED from school? | Genesis Week’.
Thanks for the comment. I even mentioned both in the post and on the show that I agree, I felt Nye had the upper hand in the debate. However, I think Teno’s comment is correct – if the evolutionists really thought Nye had won, they would have loved to have shown it in schools. Banning any questioning of evolution (which goes far beyond introducing creation into the classroom, i.e. intelligent design, or even just questioning the validity of the alleged evidence for evolution) is definitely the modus operandi of the anti-theists and evolutionists. I could provide dozens and dozens of examples (hundreds?). This was only one of many examples, and was completely in line with the modus operandi. Claiming it was an attempt to introduce creationism into the classroom is a lame excuse, and is, in fact, the modus operandi claim whenever they try to ban questioning of evolution! Just look at the Kitzmiller/Dover trial (a trial which frankly I probably would not have wanted as a “poster boy” for allowing creation to be taught in the classroom). In the trial what did they claim? That intelligent design was simply creationism in disguise, and thus should not be allowed in schools. The absurd remarks by Judge Jones (which was simply a plagiarism of NCSE’s absurd remarks) would mean that if I stood up in a public school science classroom, held up a toy fire truck and claimed it had a creator, I would be in violation of separation of church and state. Everything about it is, frankly, stupid. Utterly absurd! And yet their fall-back argument claim (a patently and demonstrably false one) was the same as with the Ham/Nye debate: “Oh, that’s an attempt to introduce creationism into the classroom.” Ironically, it is *not* in violation of school policy or law to introduce creation into the science classroom! It’s done all the time – Karl Priest specifically teaches creation science in class all the time, and even notified the NCSE he was doing so: http://www.insectman.us/ So again, what’s wrong with showing the Ham/Nye debate in class?
Where is the evidence that evolutionists want the debate video ‘BANNED from school’ ie more than merely this one school where there appears to be a creationist teaching science? Which is what your blog title seems to imply as does the sentence “if the evolutionists really thought Nye had won, they would have loved to have shown it in schools”.
I am speculating but perhaps Pettenger wished to show students extracts from the debate such as when Ken Ham asserted that “science has been hijacked by secularists”.
According to this news release: http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/22812-ffrf-and-dawkins-foundation-combat-creationism-in-calif-school
“A concerned family reported that science teacher Brandon Pettenger is attempting to “present both sides of the argument” regarding evolution in his public classroom by showing the debate between scientist Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham and having students summarize blogs on creationist websites. One of the blogs calls the National Center for Science Education “the Darwinist education lobby.”
Incidentally no article I have read about this case has even mentioned the NCSE.
“your claim that creationists censor and banned opposing viewpoints is absurd”. Well you have no done so Ian but many many young earth creationists – including Bob – do censor or ban opposing viewpoints from their blogs and websites – which is what I was referring to. I have documented this at the British Centre for Science Education community forum. If the people who censored me are claiming that I was merely ‘trolling’ then they were lying. (Yes – angry abusive atheists trolls do exist but it suits the YEC agenda to lump in reasoned challengers with such people; I have been informed by a YEC that Answers in Genesis block and ignore my communications to them about their website’s claims – but they are not blocking irrational abuse but rather, as I set out at the following link just yesterday, are refusing to answer vital and fundamental questions arising from how they present an alternative world history ‘according to the Bible’ – http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1635 .)
Michel appears, if I understand him correctly, to be suggesting that Ham dealt with science rather than offered rhetoric at last year’s debate. No – the person who dealt with science was Nye (as Ian appears to concede).
Hi again Anne,
Please note I did not concede that Nye dealt with the science whereas Ham did not, nota bene what I specifically said on the show: The entire show was devoted to correcting Nye’s horrible ‘science’ and glaring ignorance of facts. I felt Nye won the debate on presentation and because Ham let him get away with far too much.
With regards to schools banning the debate in the classroom, again note well what you even quoted as the alleged reason for the teacher getting into hot water: he was “attempting to “present both sides of the argument” regarding evolution in his public classroom…”
What’s the problem? Isn’t that what scientific debate is all about? This is the same old rubbish from the FFRF and the NCSE. It’s their canned response. So again I must ask: Why stop someone from presenting both sides of the argument? Teaching creation in the classroom is not illegal, yet FFRF, NCSE and the anti-creationist lobby have persistently sought to protect evolutionism from scrutiny through school policy and court protection. Why would they do this? It becomes pretty obvious because they do not want *the truth* to be found out. Cause that’s debate brings out, does it not? Is that not what presenting both sides of the argument brings out?
I have no comment on your history with Sorensen, AIG, or anyone else. I have occasionally blocked nay sayers for various reasons (i.e., basically using my channel or website to spam and promote their nonsense which I had already addressed) but that’s rare. I can only speak for myself and my own policies, and frankly, I’m not always going to get it right either. I am only human, and have to make tough judgment calls sometimes. But generally speaking, I think it’s good to hear from the skeptics – like I said, it brings out the truth of the matter.
You appear to be claiming that the video was banned in this California case not because Nye lost the debate (he didn’t) but because Ham put ‘scrutiny’ onto evolution (I don’t recall that happening) and various don’t like that – even though Nye agreed to participate in a debate even on ‘enemy territory’ which suggests confidence about his position on origins, despite being criticised at the time for doing so.
Whereas Sorensen appears to be arguing – absurdly (but echoing Ken Ham himself recently) – that evolutionists want the debate banned at this school (and not viewed by fellow evolutionists) because Nye supposedly ‘lost’ on the night.
In my experience the people who want opposing viewpoints and those holding them censored and banned are usually not ‘evolutionists’ but young earth creationists like Sorensen – who has frequently boasted on his Facebook page and in his blogs about banning people (he calls them trolls or siths etc; he calls me ‘Haywire’ because I have exposed dishonest claims made by him – at the British Centre for Science Education community forum).
Of course the debate can be shown in schools in the US or indeed the UK should it be thought useful to do so (though it is two hours long I seem to recall).
Thanks for the comment, but frankly your claim that creationists censor and banned opposing viewpoints is absurd. Firstly, those of a creationary viewpoint aren’t in positions to ban or censor evolution in schools. Secondly, I have never heard of such an incident. In fact, myself and many creation researchers and speakers have often said *more* evolution should be taught, it should just be taught with more truth and facts – including the facts against it. And if you think moderation is censorship then you are again quite confused. I too moderate and yes, even ban, individuals who persistently step out of line both here and on YouTube. It has nothing to do with their opposing view, as can be seen by the opposing and critical comments I leave up. I have had evolutionists comment that these trolls (and that’s what they are) do not represent them or the evolutionary viewpoint – and I agree. If you call that censorship then you are standing up for the trolls – something even evolutionists have not done.
I think it should be shown in schools to inspire children to inquiry, learn and become critical thinkers.
This country’s school system is extremely dumbed downed so this would be beneficial to those kids.
Almost every debate I have seen on these topics, the creationist always deals with science rather than rhetoric. Evolution in littered with holes, and evolutionist don’t want to admit it in public , because they simply don’t want the alternative to be a viable option, period.
Unless of course you are going to censor me NOW, Ian (my attempted comment has been SAVED) – thus proving your words “your claim that creationists censor and banned opposing viewpoints is absurd” to be absurd and worthless. Surely someone with your IQ can deal with my points without a need for CENSORSHIP?
Relllaaaax. 🙂 You comment was long, therefore went to moderation. Apparently none of the moderators checked for comments, and I’ve been at work. I just approved it now.
Thank you. (My name is Ashley – a male Ashley by the way.)
Science is not about ‘opinions’ and not – not always – about ‘two sides of the argument’. There is a scientific theory of evolution. There is not a scientific theory of creation/creationism (that’s not just because science is based upon naturalism but because ‘creation science’ (especially the ‘young earth and universe’ version) does not fairly or convincingly address all available scientific evidence – along the lines of the comment in the recent Dawkins tweet than Ken Ham is exercised about on the AiG website this week, and that is why and how Nye won last year’s debate by highlighting that reality and saying it was ‘troubling’).
You say teaching creation in science classes is not illegal in the US. It is here in the UK.
I apologize! I have NO idea why I wrote “Anne,” because I knew your name was Ashley. How embarrassing. My bad, sorry. 🙂