Rou

I don't normally watch the show. I admit that.

When I heard they were going to have a debate segment focusing on the belief in God, I was intrigued. The people debating... left me with a little bit of a sour taste in my mouth. They chose Kirk Cameron (oh yeah, banana boy!!) and Ray Comfort to represent the religious point of view. Now, for the most part, those two are junior varsity at best. Probably the practice squad. In no way would I consider them serious voices for the religious movement. They initiated the debate by claiming they would prove God's existence without requiring the use of faith, and they would also prove that evolution is a fairy tale. Bold words

Of course, that was until I heard who their opponents would be. The Rational Response Squad (from the Blasphemy Challenge fame) was chosen to represent the atheist / scientific viewpoint. These two are web idols that are every bit as much of a sideshow as Cameron and Comfort. However, they had a much easier position. They didn't have to prove that God doesn't exist, just that Cameron and Comfort failed to prove it.

With neither side well represented, my expectations were fairly low going into the debate. After finding video of the debate, I watched it. It was better than expected. Both sides made a number of fairly standard arguments on the issue. Comfort's opening salvo was an attempt to prove a creator with the argument from design (a painter needs a painting so the universe needs a creator). The RRS shot that down easily with the standard if all things need a creator, who created God. If God doesn't need one, why does the universe.

From there the debate wandered back and forth. The attempts to attack evolution were weak and infantile, but the defense wasn't much better. The Q&A session from the audience was... painful. The crowd was hyped and made even worse points than the participants. At the end of the day, the debate went mostly in favor of the atheists. I admit some bias there, but I also feel the only reason they won the debate is because their requirements were lower. Kirk and Comfort promised to prove God and disprove evolution. They failed on both counts. The RRS was able to poke holes in most of the arguments put forth without messing up too badly.

All and all, a good debate. Not great. But as good as you can expect given the low caliber of the participants. Obviously too long for a half hour TV program though, so we head off to editing. And this is where Nightline takes out the garden hose and starts working on getting the golf ball. Honestly, the editing was atrocious. They spent over a quarter of the time talking about the panel. Far more than needed, particularly focusing on Kirk Cameron, and his ex-celebrity status. They they started the hatchet job.

Even being as even handed as possible, the aired program rarely showed anything resembling a debate. One side would present part of a position, then the editors cut to a partial rebuttal from the opposing side. They never let either side really finish statements or thoughts. Further, they edited a lot of the discussion out to show the worst of each side's points. In my personal opinion, they went so far as to edit out a large number of the atheists responses, most importantly the part that framed their position: The religious side had not scientifically proven God's existence. The cut version makes the entire debate come out as a draw. I don't think anyone watching the full version would get that impression.

It's disgusting. I don't know if it's editorial bias or simply an attempt to seem balanced for a national audience. Either way, it's dishonest. The debate did not end the way Nightline displayed. They left so much on the cutting room floor that is changed the result.

I suppose it's more reason for me to go right back to watching the Daily Show and the Colbert Report during Nightline's time slot.