Response-to-Response: Bill Nye, Brian Greene, George Church

Page 1 1/2
Read topic: Find a video that shows a public intellectual or public scientist such as Bill Nye, Brian Greene, George Church or Neil deGrasse Tyson engaging in debate on an issue. Describe the issue and the debate. Do you think the public intellectual/scientist was successful or not? Why?
Then my classmates responses to topic: there are 2. 
1. 
I chose to discuss a debate between famous theologian and apologist, William Lane Craig and cosmologist Sean Carroll. The topic of debate focuses around God & Cosmology. This debate can be found in the famous Podcast Unbelievable?
Sean Carroll debates that there are two beliefs naturalism and theism, arguing that naturalism is the more logical and plausible of the two. He goes on to claim that the evolution of the universe has to be based on models, and the model of theism is 'lazy' as it holds no structure or evidence. He also makes the argument that God does not need to follow the guidelines of fine tuning, because he is God and can do what he wants. Why do the atomic levels need to be what they are if God make the impossible possible? I found this to be interesting, as most apologists will argue that the fine tuning of physics are so defined that any fluctuation of their numbers and equations would make life unsustainable.
In his rebuttal, William Lane Craig uses Carroll's claim that no true model further confirms the existence of God. With no true model of the creation of the universe, it proves the fact this could not be accomplished without the assistance of a higher being, not naturalism. He goes on to discuss the controversial theories of the boltzmann brain, or a self-aware entity that arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos, in the creation of the universe. Instead, the God made universe with a low entropy is a much more probable theory than that of one created at random.
Now, I must say, as a Christian, my opinion for who's argument holds true will be biased. However, based on this debate, I felt that Sean Carroll supported his points with greater evidence. Craig, to me, failed to respond to Carroll's rebuttal with strong points to support his theory. Now, many would argue that theists would generally lose debates to scientists because of lack of evidence. I do believe there is some science in religion and Craig usually expresses his theories successfully, but failed to do so in this debate.
2. 
For the post I have chosen a section of debate by Bill Nye in which he was debating Ken Ham. In this debate, Mr. Nye took a stance to defend evolution against the founder of the Youth Earth Creationist ministry, Mr Ham, and his stance of creation. Overall, the debate was heavily weighed with Nye's scientific based research and proof towards evolution and evidence that some theories from Christian beliefs simply were unfounded or impossible (Short of super-powers).
In particular, Nye disputed the story of the Ark. He backed his debate with data showing comparable ship builders failures as well as lack of physical evidence today of fossils linking the earth to the massive destruction of life as depicted in the story. As well, Nye created question in the mind of the audience as to the physical possibility of Noah and his family even tending to and feeding that number of animals.
At the end of the subject of the Ark, Nye presented a strong case for its validity (or lack of). The audience is left questioning many aspects of the story as related today and some even convinced it was utterly impossible. Overall, as agreed to by skeptics and some Christians, Bill Nye won the science crowd at the debate. Not only has he won praise but also respect from creationists. This proves that science can change minds as well as the theory that general public tend to lean towards scientific based evidence.
What you WRITE: Tell what you liked and thought was interesting about each response. Maybe a half page per response. Keep separate.
Page 2 1/2-3. Do the same as above except for this topic: Think of a pseudoscience, or a pseudoscience aspect of a science, such as what is presented as a cure for a medical problem. Describe it. You might consider describing how it is presented on the Internet, and you could include a web site to support your description. What advice would you give someone who wants to become scientifically literate on this issue? Where could they go for better information on this issue, so as make better choices regarding it?
Response 1: 
Astrology is an aspect of pseudoscience. By definition, Astrology is the study of the movements and positions of celestial bodies and their influence on humans and the natural world. Most people normally translate astrology to their understanding or interest of the zodiac signs and horoscopes. To anyone interested in seeking scientific literacy on this issue I would recommend that ample research vial reliable sources to gain a better understanding of what Astrology is and how it works. Inquiry is the key. I would recommend that they consider taking an astrology class, reading a college course textbook on the subject matter and certainly seeking published research and scientific journals to gain a well-rounded view. Their monthly subscription to Cosmo for their horoscopes, tarot cards, psychic hotlines and online “Which Sign Is Your Love Match” quizzes are not reliable sources to be considered.
It’s imperative when seeking research to make good choices about selecting reputable sources. To make better choices in regards to selecting their research people should be clear about their objective. So much information is out there to be found but it’s useless if it does not correlate to the purpose of their research in the first place. For better information I strongly suggest scientific journals, and university libraries. When it comes to scientific research reliability and legitimacy are primary requirements to ensure that the information is current, supported and even tested.
Response 2: 
Pseudoscience raises a few red flags in the realm of the scientific world, and with good reason. Science is knowledge based on the truth that it is factual, with evidence to prove its worth. Without factual evidence to build the structure of theories and hypothesis, they are no more than assumptions or falsified accusations. Thus, the issue of pseudoscience presents itself. The belief, theory, or practice that has been or considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact, has stuck it's big ugly head in the medical world, and quite recently I might add. For those who watched 2016 Rio Olympics might have become all too familiar with a procedure executed to swimmers for a race, called cupping. Cupping is a therapy in which heated glass cups are applied to the skin along the meridians of the body creating suction as a way of stimulating the flow of energy. Now, one might argue the results, however, I'm not buying it. I'll chalk it up to extensive training instead. Another widely therapeutic practice is chiropractice. While the practice of 'realigning' the spinal cord and other joints has been executed for many years, no substantial results or evidence has been proven that it is actually effective. The internet expresses pseudoscience for what it is, unproven science. Without the evidence and support of effective results, it is false information.
SO, there should be 3 pages and 4 different responses (2 for each topic)