Jameson O’Reilly Professor Musselman ENGWII1H 1 April 2015 Project 3 Draft 2 MLA Documentation af title ‘good ~2nd hal&sontds al epemcnmced 1673, 4 Cealegeet3*Y Chl tac fot what verre vi . DeNyeabl: The EffectieGnecd of Bill Nye’s Latest Work Tha 15 ther Pgh TL one ‘My high school was full of the kind of people that knew multiple chemistry jokes and a a scoffed at any hint of denial about stich basic scientific processes as climate change and thetferig pivi Fegan show by the same name, was going to be debain Quainten Ham, a young~ everyone got ready to watch our hero Bill obliterate the opposition. My roommates and I cleared Creationist, off a wall in our suite, set up a projector, and made sure to eat dinner early, before the 6 PM start of the debate. We groaned when Ham explained his distinction between “historical” and “observational” science. We rolled our eyes when he shrugged off the fact that there are trees known to-be more that 9,000 years old, which is a full 3,000 years older than he claims the earth to be. Inearly gagged when Mr. Ham used a chart that went back 40,000 years to explain how all the types of dogs developed over the past 4,000. According to my friends and public opinion polls alike, Bill won the debate handily. The only problem is that all of these people agreed with On Science Guy well before the debate even began. 9 In interviews, Bill Nye has stated that conversion from Creationism to belief in evolution Lowe “would be the best case,” but that would require reaching out to Creationists instead of just sihelize créationsin? | sfuek a, Bashing tothe choir as he has done, Dominating public pinion means nothing when the goal ste erations "FE to sway a fringe group that has always and continues to proudly declare itself the defenders of 4. he truth under siege. A careful listener with any scientific sense can tell that what Mr. Ham said isNeck a brea essentially nonsensical whifl Me. Nie presented mountains of legitimate evidence for evolution through natural selectio(Ggut anyone with any scientific sense did not need to sit through two and a half hours of debate to believe in evolution. Bill failed to understand that presenting the facts can only get one so far against Mr. Ham’s superior showmanship and ability to sound reasonable even when he isn’t. He may have won the debate due to his significant factual Byts neering why pat Tes ‘eliestage, but that does not mean that he was the better presenter. His trademark style of quirky yet bx enacts” humor and fast-paced fact-packing did not translate well from television to presetatign, nor does ty atdoes Ob Lhe Hak yor may fel CLs Coty bebe ny 15 0 Get Gh translate well from either of those to book format, fad dv tain Coome sig h4 ent ee Say tags ut, tyson thd ke ev} fap elem tude ‘Nevertheless, Mr. Nye tried to clear up some Fede Reset este site lhe Be bo nd, Tate ths aleuse of examples without a clear over-arching structure by writing a Bpok in which he does the $5 gh afk nh “A bok oc same thing, This book is Undeniable: The Science of Creation! Hen telly web Hom Pe blewns are fe discusses many concepts within evolution and the evidence for each without ever , quite simply, kind of a giving a detailed enough explanation for someone who has no understanding of evolution or its constituent theories to begin with. Before he even gets into evolutionary theory itself, he gives the reader a chapter-long recap of the debate. This recap, which again, is given before any Phsqualey ear Splantion of evolution thought or theory, contains numerous examples tht hile, o wfo eatert ‘ped abuts, who have not taken a class on evolution would have no way of understanding. He weal HoCLajut begin yon Tyce of hs als bout how, nthe deat, e used topminnows aan example ofa theory making vp hn be eon tangs Hey Beal need haan. ota gists Ou try ofsspring ‘are more susceptible to infection by the blackspot parasitic worm, because they have a ‘opminnows reproduce asexually when they have to. In those episodes, their 4 “PFe>y.. «tess varied mix of genes. ... 'you stop running, stop mixing up your genes, you'll falloff the treadmill of life.” This explanation assumes an understanding of gene pools and genetic diversity, not to mention basic knowledge about what a gene is or what the word “asexual”‘means. At this point in the book, itis not clear to the reader unfamiliar with evolution why more diverse genes are necessarily beneficial, nor what genes have to do with parasitic infections, In the very next paragraph, he talks about how we can see light from stars that are farther than 6,000 light-years away, which means that the universe must be older than 6,000 years old “unless le.” Yet, he never takes the additional, necessary step of natural laws are overthrown for a wl explaining why this is so. He does not explain that the speed of light is constant or that a light- year is a unit of distance, not time as many believe. This is a central of the book; Bill No drops a bunch of facts on the reader without explaining them, and then moves on. eet 9), According to Bill, his “concern is not so much for the deniers of evolution as it is for "Ber kids,” so, logically, these should be the people that he is reaching out to. However, this is clearly not a children’s book. The inappropriate assumptions of prior knowledge have already been discussed, but there are a number of other factors that play into this. First of all, there are very few children willing to read 300 pages of anything, especially not 300 pages of dry scientific explanation punctuated only by vaguely relevant and ultimately distracting personal anecdotes. These particular children also happen to fall under the category of young-earth Creationists, or at least that is how they are being raised. Bill’s book is obviously not for this group either, given how condescending it is to Creationists. Nobody is going to be converted from their religion by a book that claims to feel bad for them and accuses them of trying to brainwash their children. In regards to the assertion that the earth is between six and ten thousand years old, Bill says “such an idea is laughable.” Whether or not you agree with that statement, itis not a good way to begin meaningful dialogue. Bill also accuses the creationist movement of having “inherently deleterious effects on society” ‘and not believing in evolution just because they do not understand. Besides the irony of a public, nobtrone ~ bret df A patlen on habescience educator mocking other people’s lack of science knowledge, these are also incredibly disrespectful. To be clear, I agree with what he said in all three of those examples, but I have g00d sense enough not to bring these up when trying to sway someone's opinion. Just as in the Creationism debate that inspired the book, Bill Nye ignores the politics and thetoric of the various science-denying movements, especially young-carth Creationism. Instead Anamgorfot of engaging with their arguments, he continues the trend of presenting science as an ultimate pot, bat but td. e o bTy, whoi? ¥9¥3" The best way to do this thority without realizing that these people already have one of those. This furthers the harmful “us versus them” narrative that Ken Ham uses to convince his followers that they are being persecuted and that alienates anyone not already in science’s comer. His presentation style is optimized for getting a lot science content across quickly but that does not accomplish much when someone disagrees with the concepts underlying all of that content. The reason Ken Ham has a following is that he knows how to reach people without relying on pre-existing support for his cause, He understands how to get people to travel to Kentucky and pay $30 to visit a museum that can be viewed online in its entirety for free. Bill has built a career on teaching science to people who believe in and enjoy science, but if he really wants to make the impact on the world that he says he does, his strategy and techniques need to change dramatically. one of the most basic parts of effective writing: keeping your ‘audience in mind. More often than not, people turn to religion for answers to the big questions, but Bill never engages with the nuances of what evolution means for the nature of existence and ‘what it means to be human. Not once does he mention the fact that belief in God and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive; Pope Francis himself has said so. To reach anyone who rejects evolution on religious grounds, Bill needs to focus his argumentation on their specific objections instead of plowing ahead with explanation after explanation of the science. The‘educational aspect must come second because otherwise it will just be falling on deaf ears, especially for adults. A good, recent example of a book that does this is The Accidental Universe, a collection of essays by Alan Lightman, In it, he engages with all of the big questions that usually get addressed only be religious figures, like the meaning of life, consciousness, and anyon ; : sheave 7 seatity, He allows for nuance and doubt instead of resenting science as an authority. tay? toad Lightman] believe[s] there are things we take on faith, without physical proof and even sometimes without any methodology for proof. We cannot clearly show why the ending of a particular novel haunts us.” This approach is much more likely to appeal to someone with religious beliefs because it acknowledges and respects the possibility of those beliefs. Once this kind of approach opens them up to the possibility of the truth of evolution, the education can begin. As previously discussed, this needs to be very gentle and not make too many assumptions about what the reader does and does not know. An interesting example of this is The Edge of the foal Cool. nS ‘Sky by Roberto Trotta, which is about cosmology, He limited himself to only using the 1,000 most common words in the English language, forcing himself to explain everything in the simplest possible terms. Although this particular technique may not be suitable for what Bill is ell Shady ne $0 446 Cangire oe Heder ash 16 Tbh hag the right idea. Nobody can learn from your book when they cannot wn heaton a4 she end! understand it. Conclusion: Evidence that this is for people already on his side yadadada boring for them of 50 grade 4¢'® purposefully preaching to the choir is a waste of everyone’s time paseo? ‘ yet of te sadadada this is even worse than not writing well for people who need to be convinced. Acknowledgements I want to thank all of my middle school science teachers for exposing me to Bill Nye the Science Coa © Suv and Justin Cook for finding the Virtual Tour and giggling throughout it with me, Finally, 1would like to thank Simone, Pedro, and Professor Musselman for reading through my first draft and providing feedback on it, i gp Works Cited | These vill tne in Genesis "BIINye Debates Ken Ham HD (Qia,” Onn video lp, Yoube, se will be P . Youtube, 4 Feb. 2014, Web. 24 Mar. 2015. Cet eb. 24 Mar. I in 4 pafly perl il. “Who Won’ The Creston vs, Evolion Dt?” The Two. National Public kKiiew, ight) Radio, Feb. 2014, Web. 24 Mar. 2015. i Clegg, Brian, “The Edge of the Sky — Roberto Trotta.” Popsciencebooks.blogspor.co.k. Popular Science, 10 Oct. 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. Delviscio, Bill. “A Fight for the Young Creationist Mind.}! Nytimes.com. The New York Titties, 3 Nov. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. il Miller, Laura. “The Accidental Universe: Physics Overthrows Itself.” Salon.com. Salon, 12 Jan. 2014, Web. 31 Mar. 2015. ‘ ‘Nye, Bill. Undeniable: The Science of Creation, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2014. Print. ‘Tharoor, Ishaan. “Pope Francis Says Evolution is Real and God is no Wizard.” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 28 Ott. 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. “Virtual Tour.” Creation Museum. Answers in Genesis, nd. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.