Should scientists debate creationists?

[Fnord]

Should scientists debate creationists?

[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
[X] Other.
[ ] On Planet X, members of the The First Church of Christ, Creation Scientists has been too busy debating among themselves to debate any real scientists.

[OPINION]

I answered "Other" because I believe that Scientists and Creationists should be allowed by law to debate in only two places: (1) School Boar meetings, and (2) Regular Church services.

If Creationists want to force their views on the secular public, then Scientists should be allowed equal opportunity to force their views upon the religious public.

[/OPINION]

It's just that simple.

 

[Caius Textor]

This is what I am talking about. This is why secularists, evolutionists, and atheists don't want objective disclosure of their position. They are completely vapid and this scream why it is time to start having national debates on the subject so the world can see and make up their own minds rather than having you atheists make it up for them.

First of all, you are constantly displaying the very same behaviour you condemn. So, if you don´t like to discuss people and if you think we should be discussing science, than do it instead of attacking "the seculars" or whatever.

Now, if you read the OP you would see the opinions of real-life specialists about the creationist "debate". Are you saying that those scientists are lying and hiding an agenda? Based on what? Based on your belief that they are cowards, or on your opinion that 150 years of biological science are dead-wrong?

In any case, you can´t simply slanter the whole group/community of scientists, atheits, secularists and whatnots simply based on your extremely limited experience of seeing some of these people talk/debate, especially in a forum like this one!

"This forum is full of bigots THEREFORE science/scientists are crooked!" isn´t even a reasonable idea, let alone a true one.

You think scientists should debate creationism? Hey, good for you. You took 10 posts to give one simple reason for your opinion. Some people here think they shouldn´t, and provided many reasons for that too. You should start adressing them instead of pointing the finger in a most annoying manner.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Hmmmmmmmm . . . . I think someone caught in this big of a fabrication will have everything he has ever done questioned and most will simply ignore him in favour of trusted sources.

That may very well be, but he has published peer reviewed and repeatable experiments. That's science regardless of his other failings or opinions about him.

 

[delphi_ote]

That may very well be, but he has published peer reviewed and repeatable experiments. That's science regardless of his other failings or opinions about him.

That may be, but he's hardly among the "worlds most renowned" scientists (again, unless we're counting fawning creationist fans...) He hasn't published anything of scientific significance in years.

 

[JJM]

Asked to name a foremost scientist, we get:

I will name you one of them. Dr Michael Behe. Probably the worlds foremost expert in microbiology. Don't know of any more famous than him.

Okay, Behe is not a microbiologist. He has a degree in biochemistry- quite different.

"World's foremost"?? Maybe, at making a fool of himself. I have evaluated his publications. His brief career in science provided little of note.

Try again.

 

[JJM]

Some interesting commentary on this topic: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/dont_debate_creationists.php

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That may be, but he's hardly among the "worlds most renowned" scientists (again, unless we're counting fawning creationist fans...) He hasn't published anything of scientific significance in years.

Yes, he certainly wasn't/isn't renowned.

I don't know about him not publishing anything relevant in years though. I came across a citation to him fairly recently, don't recall if it was to something he'd done recently though.

 

[sphenisc]

I think he was referring to evolution simply manifesting itself, as opposed to the fact that it has no specific goal or intention.

Sure, I was just pleased to find some papers that said the same thing. If you want them to mean the same then that's way too much to expect.

 

[The Atheist]

100% in agreement with Dawkins and others.

Nothing to debate, science vs fairytales. It gives an air of legitimacy it doesn't deserve to have an actual scientist stand up and debate these clowns.

Kick them in the nuts and move on.

 

[delphi_ote]

Yes, he certainly wasn't/isn't renowned.

I don't know about him not publishing anything relevant in years though. I came across a citation to him fairly recently, don't recall if it was to something he'd done recently though.

According to his university bio, his latest scientific paper was in 2004. Before that paper, you'd have to go back to the '90's to find something outside of creationist literature. That's far less than what you'd expect from even a typical researcher, let alone a "world renowned" researcher.

 

[qayak]

According to his university bio, his latest scientific paper was in 2004. Before that paper, you'd have to go back to the '90's to find something outside of creationist literature. That's far less than what you'd expect from even a typical researcher, let alone a "world renowned" researcher.

And don't forget the disclaimer by the department of biological sciences at Lehigh University:

"While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific."

 

[Wings]

Here's my question. How can you debate with someone who is so dead set on their position that no amount of evidence, of logic, of good reasoning and of good evidence could possibly sway them?

Anything that can be presented, can be turned to validate their views, if they are so inclined.

The creationists arguments have been debunked so many times, their errors shown many countless times. Evolution has tons and tons of evidence to back it up, while creationists have nothing. If someone is going to continue to hold to the creationist position with these factors, how can you possibly hope to make any difference?

To them, a scientist even showing up to one of their debates is an automatic endorsement and win, in their view. It's a total waste of time for the scientist or anyone for that matter.

I agree with Dawkins that the debates, at least from my view, don't seem to do anything positive for anyone.

 

[andyandy]

Last I heard, Newton's Laws are still valid. Did you miss the last two centuries?

Newton's laws work very well as an approximation within the macroscopic realm at eveyday conditions here on earth, but they break down at the quantum level and are also insufficient at the astronomical level.....You seem to have missed the 20th century.... General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics specifically.

 

[JayT]

Pro vs Con

Actually scientists shouldn't bother, but they still keep trying like fools.

Creationists cannot be reasoned with in any productive way, so attempting to do so is really a vain waste of time that could have been better spent more wisely by going back to sleep for an extra hour. At least sleep has some proven benefit whereas Creationists have produced nothing of any benefit in history.

The only thing dumber than a Creationist is a person who believes he can hold an intelligent conversation with one and get anywhere!

LOL





Adden Dumb:

Considering the statement

"Thus, I now believe it is a mistake for scientists to participate in such debates and I will not do another."

Methinks I was a bit in haste to judge.

After more thought, perhaps a debate would have a potential benefit. If even one soul is saved for science, it hasn't been entirely in vain!


Even IF it doesn't sway the Creationists' irrational beliefs, some other party to the debate may be able to make an intelligent decision on the argument based upon hearing what both sides have to say.

If scientists refused to debate the issue at all, then no rational arguments to the contrary would ever be heard and that would be counterproductive to the cause of science and beneficial to the opposition.

For a truly informed opinion, one needs to be aware of the arguments on both sides of an issue so the pros and cons can be weighed one against the other and that's the purpose of public debate.

Generally, to some extent, science has an obligatory call to arms when pseudoscience declares war on reason, however in some cases, there may be justifiable exceptions, such as in the case of a "stacked" audience. Science has no need to stoop to deceitful means to achieve its objectives.

It's a dirty, thankless job, but someone has to do it.

Creationists need deceit, dishonesty and doubt as their standard tools because no honourable way whatsoever exists for them to achieve their goals. But integrity never has been and never will be a barrier for them.

... a false statement knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie.

(Catholic Encyclopedia, IX, 471)

Since when does anyone NOT have a right to the truth and who has the authority to make that decision for me?

Viva la Evolution!

 

[JoeEllison]

To me, the issue rests on this one fact: creationists have no new viewpoints worthy of debate. "Intelligent design" advocates are simply creationists who lack the basic integrity and honest to admit their creationist position.

So, why would anyone debate them, when there is nothing there to debate? It would be like debating with someone who believes the earth is flat: since one side is so very obviously wrong, there's no purpose in discussing a non-issue.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I will name you one of them. Dr Michael Behe. Probably the worlds foremost expert in microbiology.

According to whom?

Don't know of any more famous than him.

Really? You've never heard of Dr. Joshua Lederberg? How about Selman Waxman? Or Dr. J. Michael Bishop? They've all won the Nobel Prize. Could it be that Behe is the only microbiologist that you are familiar with?

 

[my_wan]

Here's my question. How can you debate with someone who is so dead set on their position that no amount of evidence, of logic, of good reasoning and of good evidence could possibly sway them?

Short answer you can't. Longer answer is that many out there are tempted and really don't know how strong the evidence really is. A religious friend of mine recently asked me for the evidence that actually exist. Why now? Her mother who talks to god (note I normally capitalize) in her sleep thought that if she quit smoking like god told her to she was going to be rewarded with better health and better control of her tongue. No kidding this is for real. The family has been ripped to shreds over this religious control thing. Well after a week without a cigarette the disappointment is building. My friend seeing this is serious about wanting the actual evidence.

I will not abandon my friend. In a forum where I get to take my time and reason my responses I will give the truth to the best of my ability. If even one other person on the edge like my friend (in more ways than one) it is worth it.

 

[my_wan]

Quote of the ages;

"For as much as by God's design the world failed to know God by means of its wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe in him through the foolishness of Holy Scripture."

Apostle Paul in letters to many churches of his time.

http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/history_of_christianity.html

So now many christians want to deny us knowledge of "God's design" on the grounds it conflicts with the "foolishness of Holy Scripture". Ironic don't you think?

 

[qayak]

Short answer you can't. Longer answer is that many out there are tempted and really don't know how strong the evidence really is. A religious friend of mine recently asked me for the evidence that actually exist. Why now? Her mother who talks to god (note I normally capitalize) in her sleep thought that if she quit smoking like god told her to she was going to be rewarded with better health and better control of her tongue. No kidding this is for real. The family has been ripped to shreds over this religious control thing. Well after a week without a cigarette the disappointment is building. My friend seeing this is serious about wanting the actual evidence.

I will not abandon my friend. In a forum where I get to take my time and reason my responses I will give the truth to the best of my ability. If even one other person on the edge like my friend (in more ways than one) it is worth it.

I think there is a difference between helping a friend or someone serious about learning and debating a publicity whore on a subject that can be refuted without having a Dr. in front of your name.

The rest of Dawkin's advice should be kept in mind as it is brilliant: "Quite a good plan, which I follow myself from time to time, is to recommend that the case for evolution could easily be entrusted to a local undergraduate majoring in biology."

This would certainly put the shoe on the other foot. An undergraduate destroying the arguments of a creationist with a huge following, on public television! Probably the best way to take the wind out of the ID sails.

 

[my_wan]

Yes I do take my friend far more seriously than this forum debate. I like your idea about the hug (if I could keep a straight face).