Skepchick alerted their readers to a face-off between Ken Ham and Nica Lalli on “Fox and Friends” this morning. So I set the DVR, went to sleep, and dreamed of cowboys riding dinosaurs.
Whenever you hear that something is scheduled to be on Fox, and especially on Fox and Friends, you have to be prepared to absorb some drivel. “Fox and Friends” is a lot like the worst of the second hour of the “Today Show” only more crass, more snide, less helpful, more patrioholic1, and even less substantive, as the “debates” are timed to fall within a 6-year-old’s attention span.
Basically, the debate consisted of Ham repeating “come to the museum” as many times as he could, while telling Lalli she was irrational for not believing in everything he believed in.
The Fox host tried to cast Lalli as a kook who would object to any museum involving religion, but gave her a chance to respond and she clearly expressed the difference: Ham’s isn’t a museum dedicated to knowledge about a religion. It’s dedicated to promoting a belief.
It was a funny moment when Ham said “but that’s an irrational belief” and it sounded like he was talking about “belief in God.” This was too much for Lalli, who vocally agreed.
They showed footage of the museum while the two were talking, including pictures of dinosaurs. Lalli noted the dinosaurs and pointed out that they weren’t mentioned in the Bible. Ham responded by saying that they were mentioned in the Bible2 but that the word “dinosaur” wasn’t invented yet. Lalli came back with, “Well why not include evolution, which also wasn’t invented yet?” And so it went.
I have to give Lalli credit for even appearing opposite this guy. But she reinforced something important. You can’t “do science” in the 3 minutes that you are given for a segment on a “news” show like this. Creationists have known for a long time that you don’t reach the general public by arguing rationally. When 3 minutes, or a biased audience, are all you have, you have to stop being a scientist for a bit and go for the rhetorical jugular.
Just being intelligent and well-spoken isn’t good enough. It helps to be able to “have good comebacks” for the opposition’s assertions. But I think it is better still to have a very small handful of points (maybe just one or two) hammer at them, repeat them, and be ready for the kind of response you’re going to get. But don’t get run off into a rabbit-warren of argument. In 3-or-so minutes you’re only trying to make your point and so repetition is your friend.
I think Lalli did a decent job, and I think it’s important that there are people willing to do what she did. She didn’t push her book at all, though the host did mention it. Her points came across as “you’re wrong about dinos in the Bible and it’s not a real museum if you’re asked to ‘prepare to believe.’” I think the tactic of “you’re wrong on the dinos, and that calls your whole museum into question” is a good point.
These shows are how many people get their information. Scientists concede this ground at the peril of public support for science.
1 pa·tri·o·hol·ism n. A disorder characterized by the excessive focus on the superiority of your love for your country leading to psychological harm and impaired social and vocational functioning, eventually rendering you capable only of working for right wing bloviators.
Posted by James at May 29, 2007 8:09 AM