Should scientists debate creationists?

[JoeEllison]

You mean "evasive".

Evolutionary thinking has held the advance of mankind back for almost two centuries now. Every idiot theory from embryonic recapitulation to using fossils to define virtually the same things we see today has wasted the time of many a critical thinker. All in the name of a religion of Atheism and evolution.

Conceptually, evolution as an origin is as irrational as looking at my calculator and then my computer, seeing similarities and concluding that the computer was once a calculator that evolved spontaneously and randomly with energy applied without guiding intelligence. If I did this in something so relatively simplistic as electronics, I would be put in a straight jacket and hauled away.

But, if I did this with something inordinately complex as lifeforms, I am lauded as a free thinker and the evolutionists sing my praises and carrying me on their shoulders. Go figure.

My, my, the wild concepts an evolutionist will accept as fact. There are some things a goat won't eat but nothing an evolutionists won't accept just to maintain his/her religion. Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. I feel like I am looking at a new species of mankind that does not possess simple discernment. I think I will call this new evolutionary creature "homo-sapien-nondiscernus." Shouldn't I get some credit for the discovery of this new creature? Don't I deserve to be on the cover of Nature magazine? My self-proclaimed brilliance in evolution is unspeakable. From now on, my new species will be spoken up in forums like this as one of the "established facts" that support evolution.

How about that. Super-fame for just posting on a web site. You can't beat that for a day's work.

This is why you can't debate a creationist. They have no knowledge of your position or much to say on their own. They just blather on against one strawman after another, and then claim victory when you are unable or unwilling to correct every single falsehood they spew in the allotted time. Even here, with unlimited time and resources, the fact that you have to correct nearly every sentence that a creationist posts makes for a daunting and ultimately unrewarding task.

 

[PixyMisa]

You mean "evasive".

No.

Evolutionary thinking has held the advance of mankind back for almost two centuries now.

Quite on the contrary. Evolutionary theory is, just for one example, critical to research into antibiotics and many other pharmaceuticals.

(Agitated babble snipped.)

I have asked you what it is regarding evolution with which you disagree. You have not yet answered. I will ask again.

What is it, specifically, that you dispute? Do you claim that speciation does not happen? That observed processes of speciation cannot produce greater levels of phylogenetic differentiation? That observed rates of mutation are insufficient to produce observed rates of evolution? That mutation cannot produce new and beneficial genes?

What?

 

[ClintonHammond]

"They just blather on against one strawman after another, and then claim victory when you are unable or unwilling to correct every single falsehood they spew in the allotted time."

Why a man should never play chess with a pigeon....

 

[rittjc]

First, what is irreducable?

Second, the hypothesis (or at best the conjecture) of irreducible complexity was found to be false. The flagellum, the eye,... all are composed of structures that have functions outside of the whole.

Are you really trying to win by playing semantic games?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Try using evidence next time.
start here
www.talkorigin.org Seems reality doesn't like you very much.

Yes, refer me to a creation hater site and tell me to look at it objectively. Let Behe defend his own ideas. They just seem very logical and plausible to me.

But you asked what is irreducibly complex. I can do not do better than use his example in his book. Irreducible complexity is a state of a design (or organization for you evolutionists) were it cannot eliminate one atomic aspect of the design without causing the entire thing to cease to function. He uses the example of a Victor-like mousetrap to introduce the concept. There is not one single piece, nail, wood, bar, spring, catch, that could be eliminated that would cause the thing to function as a unit.

This is true down at the molecular level. Systems are so complex that if you remove one aspect of them (in order to "experiment" in the evolution mechanism as evolution is claimed to) then the system breaks down. He goes into examples like the unspeakable complexity of what we see as simple blood clotting. This process is so elaborate that if one aspect of it failed, the whole process would fail and the "evolving" organism would cease to exist.

Evolutionists think that the organism is its own "laboratory" where random experiments are carried out. Such a laboratory has never been viewed or seen but is simply conjectured to fit a religious view of evolution. Then "viola!" we have new irrefutable science because the evolutionist simply claims that which has never been seen and is simply conjectured is absolute fact.

Microbiology today is ripping Evolution a new one. Being able to begin seeing inside a cell is changing the table. I don't think you evolutionists ever realized that opening the hood to see the engine would reveal something besides a squirrel in an exercise wheel that was driving the car's motion. You think evolution is hard now, wait until the complex systems become completely understood and try to pass them off as random occurrence. There is a bad moon rising over the camp of evolution. We would understand these systems if we assumed the were complete and didn't spend time claiming they were a work in progress so no conclusions could be made of their design.

Thank the "creation entity" that the evolutionist didn't stop the discovery of true complexity or keep us in the "dark ages of blood letting and alchemy". The intrusion of the religion of evolution is an anathema to the scientific process. Let's let intelligent people look at intelligent design. Stop the religion.

 

[JoeEllison]

"They just blather on against one strawman after another, and then claim victory when you are unable or unwilling to correct every single falsehood they spew in the allotted time."

Why a man should never play chess with a pigeon....

Because they'll crap on the table, peck your hand, and then fly off with one of the pieces?

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Why are people unwilling to debate creationists live and in public, but willing to debate them in public in this forum? What's the difference? If you''ll debate them here I hope you'd say the same things to their faces with people watching.

 

[kjkent1]

You mean "evasive".

Evolutionary thinking has held the advance of mankind back for almost two centuries now. Every idiot theory from embryonic recapitulation to using fossils to define virtually the same things we see today has wasted the time of many a critical thinker. All in the name of a religion of Atheism and evolution.

Exactly how has evolution "held the advance of mankind back"? And, please define "advance."

Conceptually, evolution as an origin is as irrational as looking at my calculator and then my computer, seeing similarities and concluding that the computer was once a calculator that evolved spontaneously and randomly with energy applied without guiding intelligence

If I did this in something so relatively simplistic as electronics, I would be put in a straight jacket and hauled away.

Can you prove that the creators of the computer and the calculator are "intelligent?" Can you prove that the inventions of human civilization are not merely the result of a stupendously long string of accidents?

My, my, the wild concepts an evolutionist will accept as fact. There are some things a goat won't eat but nothing an evolutionists won't accept just to maintain his/her religion. Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. I feel like I am looking at a new species of mankind that does not possess simple discernment. I think I will call this new evolutionary creature "homo-sapien-nondiscernus." Shouldn't I get some credit for the discovery of this new creature? Don't I deserve to be on the cover of Nature magazine? My self-proclaimed brilliance in evolution is unspeakable. From now on, my new species will be spoken up in forums like this as one of the "established facts" that support evolution.

How about that. Super-fame for just posting on a web site. You can't beat that for a day's work.

After reviewing your recent posts on the issue, your entire argument seems to be nothing more than an appeal to incredulity. Looks more like the inflamatory acts of an internet troll, than the thoughtful comments from someone who really has an intellectual argument to offer.

If you want to argue that evolution is false, why don't you put forth your alternative theory, and let's see how it stands up against the evidence.

Maybe you'll convince all of the scientists here, that you're right and they're wrong.

 

[JoeEllison]

Why are people unwilling to debate creationists live and in public, but willing to debate them in public in this forum? What's the difference? If you''ll debate them here I hope you'd do the same things to their faces with people watching.

Well, we haven't seen an actual debate in this thread, have we? Mocking someone for their ignorance doesn't count as debate, no matter how entertaining or enjoyable.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Let Behe defend his own ideas. They just seem very logical and plausible to me.

"Seem[ing] logical and plausible" is, however, not by itself a valid criterion for judging the factuality of a proposition.

But you asked what is irreducibly complex. I can do not do better than use his example in his book. Irreducible complexity is a state of a design (or organization for you evolutionists) were it cannot eliminate one atomic aspect of the design without causing the entire thing to cease to function. He uses the example of a Victor-like mousetrap to introduce the concept. There is not one single piece, nail, wood, bar, spring, catch, that could be eliminated that would cause the thing to function as a unit.

Is that a fact? The salient point is that a convincing case of "irreducible complexity" has yet to be put forward.

'Luthon64

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Well, we haven't seen an actual debate in this thread, have we? Mocking someone for their ignorance doesn't count as debate, no matter how entertaining or enjoyable.

So much the better to do it live with an audience.

 

[PixyMisa]

YBut you asked what is irreducibly complex. I can do not do better than use his example in his book. Irreducible complexity is a state of a design (or organization for you evolutionists) were it cannot eliminate one atomic aspect of the design without causing the entire thing to cease to function. He uses the example of a Victor-like mousetrap to introduce the concept. There is not one single piece, nail, wood, bar, spring, catch, that could be eliminated that would cause the thing to function as a unit.

Oh, really?

This is true down at the molecular level. Systems are so complex that if you remove one aspect of them (in order to "experiment" in the evolution mechanism as evolution is claimed to) then the system breaks down. He goes into examples like the unspeakable complexity of what we see as simple blood clotting. This process is so elaborate that if one aspect of it failed, the whole process would fail and the "evolving" organism would cease to exist.

Except that this is not true. There are any number of species around today that are missing various elements of the blood clotting cascade, and yet their blood still clots. The blood clotting cascade is not irreducibly complex; no matter what Behe may claim, he has been proven wrong.

Evolutionists think that the organism is its own "laboratory" where random experiments are carried out.

Not so, or at least, not in complex lifeforms. The reshuffling of genes happens during reproduction.

Such a laboratory has never been viewed or seen but is simply conjectured to fit a religious view of evolution.

False. Mutations have been observed in great number. Speciation has been observed both in nature and in the lab.

Microbiology today is ripping Evolution a new one.

No. The findings of microbiology have confirmed evolution.

You think evolution is hard now, wait until the complex systems become completely understood and try to pass them off as random occurrence.

Do you have any understanding of the concepts of genetic variability or natural selection? These are the driving forces of evolution, and microbiology allows us to see them happening - and what we see is evolution happening.

 

[ClintonHammond]

"Because they'll crap on the table, peck your hand, and then fly off with one of the pieces?"

They will eventually crap all over the board, knock over all the pieces, and fly back to their roost where they will declaim to all their pigeon friends how they 'beat a man at chess'....

 

[PixyMisa]

Why are people unwilling to debate creationists live and in public, but willing to debate them in public in this forum? What's the difference? If you''ll debate them here I hope you'd do the same things to their faces with people watching.

Structure.

Here we can quote the creationist, so they can't escape their own words.
Here we can easily link and quote relevant research, past refutations of creationist claims, and so on.
Here the Gish Gallop doesn't work. If a creationist comes up with 50 false claims in 5 minutes, ten of us can spend half an hour each refuting those claims.
Here the creationists' greatest weapon - appalling intellectual dishonesty - doesn't work.

 

[JoeEllison]

So much the better to do it live with an audience.

Do you think people would pay to see that? The Creationist says stupid stuff for 10 minutes, then the scientist spends 10 minutes carrying in boxes of paper. The Creationist mocks the scientist for bringing in stacks of evidence for evolution. The scientist replies that this isn't the evidence... this is a list of the books supporting evolution, and these boxes only have the list up to "B". Then the scientist points and laughs at the Creationist for the remainder of the "debate".

Not as satisfying as we'd hope...

 

[krazyKemist]

Those debating a creationist by definition assume there is no god from the very beginning. You argument is specious.

No, they don't. Why do you assume that somebody who accept evolution is an atheist ? I know many catholics who scoff at creationism.

Evolution does not prove that god doesn't exist. Neither did heliocentrism, or that the universe is huge and old. All these things in fact would tend to make god greater to many christians. Greater than the local god creating a flat earth 6000 years ago.

Evolution and heliocentrism do make man seem smaller though. That's why proponents of heliocentrism were burned at the stake. Vanity. Simple, petty, human vanity.

the Kemist

 

[joobz]

But you asked what is irreducibly complex.

No, I didn't.I asked what Irreducable is? I know what irreducible complexity is. Had you bothered to read the rest of my post, you would have seen that all of Behe's arguments on examples of irreducible complexity has been shot down.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What makes you say the issue is settled? What are you trying to hide. A flat earth is testable. Evolution is not.

Say what? Have you been in a cave for 150 years?

~~ Paul

 

[rcronk]

The Bible seems to be more concerned with the "why" rather than the "how" of creation. It seems to address the salvation of men rather than the details of how God put the earth and living things together. Those details seem to be outside of the scope of the book.

I think some creationists try to derive the "how" from the Bible and end up inventing and then defending possible straw-men arguments. As stated earlier in this thread, evolution and the existence of God are not necessarily exclusive.

I think we should continue searching for all truth through proven scientific methods and I believe the theist should have nothing to fear as scientific truth is revealed because I believe that all truth agrees and any false truths (flat earth, etc.) will eventually be found out and changed.

If there truly is a God, the truth of His existence will fit perfectly into whatever truth science has discovered up to that point.

As for whether debate should occur, it depends on the purpose of that debate. It would be nice to get theist scientists to be on the creationist side of the debate so that straw-men arguments can be avoided, order and logic can prevail and, if God exists, with persistence and honesty, some common ground can appear and falsehoods on both sides can be discarded.

I don't think we have the right players for such a discourse at this time because both sides often end up arguing past each other (go back and read this thread to see examples of this).

One implied straw-man argument in this thread is that "proof of evolution = proof of no God." It was said once in this thread that there are theist evolutionists, but it seems for some reason that everything is riding on evolution. It is supposed that if it's proven, theism is doomed. If it's disproved, theism is true. This is a false dilemma logical fallacy. Is it not possible that God exists and life can adapt and evolve?

I, as a theist, must say "I pretty much know 'why', but I'm not sure exactly 'how' - let's work on finding out 'how' by using the best methods we have." I think God wants me to improve in my capacity to find out truth on my own and to become a better person, not remain in ignorance.

God doesn't explicitly say that He didn't use some form of evolution to get things going here. He also doesn't explicitly say that he did. He did say that he created all things spiritually first and then physically and that they should multiply after their own kind which I guess could imply that He didn't use evolution, but it doesn't seem perfectly clear.

Instead of a debate, why can't theists work to logically form theories that could incorporate evolutionary evidence and creationism assertions? I've seen some of this before but it's far too rare and requires a lot of honesty. Fighting and arguing past each other only divides us and blinds us with hatred directed at the "other side".

So it depends on the purpose of the debates. If it's to find truth and common ground scientifically and logically, challenging each other with respect along the way, then yes, go for it - let's all work together and see what we can find. If it's to fight, argue, prove the "other guy" wrong, and launch personal attacks without logic or the scientific method, then debates would be a bad idea. Unfortunately, most of what I see is the latter case.

 

[my_wan]

rittjc,
In post #53 I offered a real debate yet you are responding to others as if I never give any evidence. In fact you have made directly contradictory claims without responding to my offer and evidence. So it looking like you really don't want a real debate.

In post #96 you say;

Did you prove that irreducible complexity can be reduced?

It has been proved. I point out how in my offer to debate post. Irreducible complexity is defined by a system that contains multiple parts such that when any one of those parts are missing the whole no longer works. Behe uses a mouse trap as an example. Therefore in the example of a computer program I give if this evolving program evolves a rule set where if any one of multiple rule sets is missing the whole rule set fails it is by definition irreducible complexity. I'll find you a link to a free program to do it yourself. More professional software can even be used to evolve (invent) better electronic circuit designs, antennas, or about anything else.

Yes, there should be debate as long as the creationists don't bring up anything I can't refute.

Evolution has "kinds", the simply rename them "orders" so they can't be correlated to Genesis.

Evolution, a belief of convenience. I believe it so therefore it is true.

Do you people ever really think about what you say? Ever?

You may bring up anything you wish. You must also first respond to the evidence presented earlier in post #53. I will offer evidence of speciation ("kinds") but you seem to have ignored me altogether. I will even allow the Genesis definition of "kinds". First you must refute the evidence I have provided or at least try. Refer to post #53 for the evidence to refute.

So if you want a real debate respond. If you just want to continue with accusations like "the magic of unseen evolution" and "emotional evolution zealot" just continue ignoring my posts.

 

[John Hewitt]

Should scientists debate creationists?

Michael Shermer used to strongly feel that science should be defended in that forum, but after his debate with Kent Hovind <he changed his mind.>http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/620_then_a_miracle_occurs_12_30_1899.asp

Richard Dawkins wrote:


Full article: http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins

I think scientists should debate with creationists. I do not suggest that every scientist should do so but some evolutionary scientists are deeply embedded within the creation/evolution debate - I fail to see how they can avoid it. For example, I find it hard to understand how Dawkins can refuse to take part in this dialogue. His recent book, The God Delusion, is specifically directed to this discourse and is, in many ways, a direct response to the creationism and ID movement. It seems absurd to write such a book and then refuse to engage within the very debate that motivates it and has become so central to it.