Should scientists debate creationists?

[The Great Hairy One]

You say Behe is a failure? Did you prove that irreducible complexity can be reduced?

Yes, Behe is a failure. By any scientific requirement, he has failed to provide any form of evidence for his theory of "Irreducible Complexity". Furthermore, lecturers are expected to produce a large volume of original research, published in peer-reviewed journals. They are also expected to have grad students, advance the cause of science, be ambassadors of science to the general public, work together with industry to better humanity, and so on and so on.

Under all of these criteria, Behe has failed. He's not even a poor scientist, he's a hack.

As for Irreducible Complexity, it's been totally and utterly refuted. It's been completely rejected by science. There is not a single example Behe has proposed which stands up to scrutiny. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

You are an emotional evolution zealot. Not a scientist. Degrees mean nothing if objectivity is lacking. You might as well have a degree in Philosophy or Theology. Neither of them help you or hurt you if you are blindly biased.

Yadda yadda yadda. You want to talk facts and objectivity? Or you just want to mud-sling? I've been using the internet, email and usenet since 1987. I've been exposed to flames from the best. And you, my friend, haven't even warmed the hairs on my toes.

You didn't refute Behe. You were the ones that claimed that the inside of the cell was "goop" until recent times when microbiology has exposed them full of machines of all shorts from motors, conveyor systems, exhaust systems, and most intriguing of all, replication systems.

The biochemistry of a cell is fascinating and definitely worth study. Let me just point out that every single advance in biochemistry in the past 100 years has been performed by scientists. I'm proud to be standing on the shoulders of giants. And whilst I no longer work in the field of biology, I know that some of my work was used (and is being used) by others to further advance human knowledge. Can you claim as much?

As for the "goop" argument, that hasn't been true since 1931, when Ernst Ruska built the first electron microscope and peered into cells. Even before then, scientists knew that cells were pretty complex constructs, which performed some incredibly wild biochemistry. Claiming that they were "goop" is just wrong.

You haven't shredded anything except your credibility as someone objective and unbiased. You are another sheep of the field. A stamped out trained parrot that does nothing but spit out talking points but no rational or logical counter argument that tends to dispute those made by the other side using science.

You basis of fact is your preconceived conclusion that no one is allowed to challenge as it is a self-proclaimed "absolute fact".

No one violates the scientific process more so than an evolutionist. No one.

But then again, what does scientific process have to do with Evolution?

Your understanding of evolution, and the involved processes, has already been shown to be both extremely weak and utterly erroneous. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of modern biological and medical science only makes sense in the light of an understanding of evolution.

So as you sit there and ingest your vegetables - grown with thanks to modern biochemicals, modern horticulture and modern genetic engineering techniques - and write your rants on a computer developed by the very scientists you lambaste so, all you manage to do is highlight the very pinnacle of your own hypocrisy.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[joobz]

How many times and in how many ways can scientists keep saying "you're talking bollocks"?

1.) You're not even wrong
2.) That's a load of Poopy
3.) I've heard smarter ideas from a fart
4.) Moron says what?
5.) Was that your argument, or did you just ◊◊◊◊ out of your mouth?
6.) Nope
7.) The Stupid It BURNS!!
and my personal favorite
8.) what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, I still bother as I sometimes learn something in the process. TGHO's posts in the R&P thread are an example of a clear concise way of describing things that I will shamelessly plagiarize cite when talking with reasonable people. I also learned a bit about real Information Theory as part of a derail, and I picked up a new Mornington Crescent strategy. Any day I learn something or a better way to phrase something is a good day.

Good point. Just make sure you take the credit yourself!

 

[qayak]

And you, my friend, haven't even warmed the hairs on my toes.

Rittjc,

Please pay attention:

The Great Hairy One has hair on his toes.

Chimps have hair on their toes.

Evolution is true!

 

[Mobyseven]

J. B. S. Haldane.

Thanks for the correction.

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.

Yeah, what has evolution done to further our society!

Er...rittjc, do you know why you need a different influenza vaccine every year?

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.

Short answer: In writing, it is easier to respond to all the points brought up and to take the time to double check and source your facts. In a verbal debate you have limited time to respond, and you may not correctly source something.

This "Gish Gallop" thing can't be some unassailable debate tactic. Somebody can come up with a coutertactic(I suspect somebody has, as his tactic is not only applicable as an attack on this one scientific theory, so I'm sure it's been used and rebuffed before).

Well, it certainly brings to mind Ian Plimer's famous request in a public debate that Gish demonstrate how electromagnetism is 'just a theory', using a car battery and jumper cables...

 

[PixyMisa]

Right, only evolution became an accepted scientific theory before the internet was invented. It was able to do so because of a preponderance of evidence, and there is more evidence now than ever. This "Gish Gallop" thing can't be some unassailable debate tactic. Somebody can come up with a coutertactic(I suspect somebody has, as his tactic is not only applicable as an attack on this one scientific theory, so I'm sure it's been used and rebuffed before).

The Gish Gallop is a hard technique for a scientist to counter because it is so blatantly fraudulent. The only way to attack it is to attack the creationist's credibility rather than his arguments - which renders the debate essentially worthless.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

The Gish Gallop is a hard technique for a scientist to counter because it is so blatantly fraudulent. The only way to attack it is to attack the creationist's credibility rather than his arguments - which renders the debate essentially worthless.

Kent Hovind has perfected the Gallop. Just check out any of his videos. It's amazing to watch. I never thought a person could speak so fast until I saw it!

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Segnosaur]

Yeah, that's a given and rittjc is proving it every step - he's a troll.

Trouble is, he's not alone. There's a radio program here on a local station (CFRA in Ottawa) run by some pastor of a baptist church that I sometimes hear when I'm in the car (not that I go looking for his program...) Most of his shows are on politics and/or religion, but occasionally he has some creationist on, spouting all the bad science that your average creationist likes to use. I've even emailed him to point out the flaws, only to basically receive the response "I'm not interested in debating".

Sadly, there aren't too many people who call in to challenge his (and his guest's views), and I never seem to be near a phone to call in myself. (Not that I'd be a great rebuttal person, but it would be better than nothing.)

Anyway, something of infinitely more interest caught my eye - the quotes you have from Undercover Elephant in your sig. I'm assuming they're right, but UE is board admin at Dawkins' forum.

If you can give me some links, I'd quite like to take it up on that forum - those comments are outrageous.

Are you sure its the same person? (And thanks andyandy for doing the leg-work for me... I hope the google link gives an idea.)

The individual in question hasn't been around the JREF forum, but if I remember, he tended to stick to the politics subforum. (I haven't visited the Dawkin's forum so I didn't know he, or someone with his nick, was admin there.) He was quite the prolific poster... every once in a while, he'd get on one of these "America is at fault (for 9/11)" rants, then he would calm down, applogize, then later on turn around and do the same thing.

It has been a while since I put his quotes in my sig. When I did, some people expressed the same sort of surprise, until I pointed them to the exact location of his posts. It may be time to change my sig (after all, he's long gone from this forum); however, sometimes I think its best to keep it there not because of him, but as an example of how 'ugly' an opinion people can hold even when they are supposedly are trying to claim the moral high ground.

 

[John Hewitt]

But nicely pointed out. I guess, on that basis, if Tiger stands up and says, "All you weekend golfers at thirty over suck at golf because...." he would then be under an obligation to go and talk to some weekend golfers.

Accordingly, you're right, but Dawkins' problem is more that his case will be full of scientific gobbledygook, while the other side just sits and spouts BS in plain, everyday [biblical] English. Judged by an Oxford debate standard, you and I both know that Dawkins would win unanimously.

Unfortunately, Mr & Mrs Public won't see it that way and it's something which could do more harm than good. When even the Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution, I think the chances for creationists to debate this subject has long passed. They are but a lunatic fringe of christians even, and definitely beneath the contempt of a Professor of Public Understanding of Science.

To me, it's the same as asking why a Professor of Engineering would want to debate a 9/11 CT nutter who claims no planes hit WTC - the mere acceptance of debate would give credence to the subject, which in neither case, actually exists.

I don't really like this golfing analogy. Golf has clearly defined rules and it is clear that, in a contest between Tiger Woods and me, onlookers could deduce that I had lost from the scoreline. There would be no need for debate.

Science is different and onlookers cannot deduce an objective winner from competing exercises in propaganda. If competing propaganda is all they get - they cannot even form an impartial opinion of their own. I can agree that there need to be ground rules for debate but if scientists are going to actually refuse debate, where does that stop? Does it transfer to issues within science? Could Dawkins reasonably refuse debate with, for example, Sloan Wilson with whom he has differences about group selection? Should they just talk past one another?

 

[The Atheist]

Er...rittjc, do you know why you need a different influenza vaccine every year?

Shhh!

Shocker. You should never raise that one, because it's a mutation, not evolution. If evolution were real, with so many mutations, influenza viruses would now be automatic dishwashers.

Or bananas.

The Gish Gallop is a hard technique for a scientist to counter because it is so blatantly fraudulent. The only way to attack it is to attack the creationist's credibility rather than his arguments - which renders the debate essentially worthless.

Bingo.

That's exactly what they do. Every now and then I do "debate" with one (tongue-in-cheekingly as possible) and they're just unreal. It doesn't matter what type of evidence is provided, they will not accept it. Their position is a priori, goddidit. If the facts shown do not fit that position, the facts are incorrect.

Trying to head-butt a 300 ft tall sequoia would be more meaningful.

Sadly, there aren't too many people who call in to challenge his (and his guest's views), and I never seem to be near a phone to call in myself. (Not that I'd be a great rebuttal person, but it would be better than nothing.)

Been there, done that. Radio is the worst of all forms of debate for the person not in the studio, because the guy in the studio decides who hears what and the very nanosecond you ask a question he cannot answer, you are 7-second delayed the #### out of there.

Even sneaking into it by seeming to agree, then coming up with, "but, then I got to this and thought - hang on, that goes against all established science..."

"Hello..."

"Hello, The, are you there? ..."

"Dang, I think we lost The, there. Please call us back. Meanwhile, let's listen to some Amy Grant."

I don't really like this golfing analogy. Golf has clearly defined rules and it is clear that, in a contest between Tiger Woods and me, onlookers could deduce that I had lost from the scoreline. There would be no need for debate.

Yeah, I'm not really a golf analogy bloke myself, but I couldn't think of a decent rugby one quickly and Tiger had already come up.

Science is different and onlookers cannot deduce an objective winner from competing exercises in propaganda.

Unfortunately, regarding the proletariat, I think they do just that - they're so used to seeing pompous asses dressed up as humans, spouting party propaganda and lies that they would treat a debate between Dawkins and [/insert fundy creationist dickhead] in exactly the same way. They'd watch the debate and think the one with the prettiest shirt won.

If competing propaganda is all they get - they cannot even form an impartial opinion of their own.

Well, I think the "competing propaganda" is a certainty since I doubt many of the audience will be into algorithms for the likelihood of intermediate speciation. [or words to that effect]

Accordingly, proles will side with the one who seems to make the most sense. When one side has to resort to any kind of technical language, while the other can tell about "truths" learned at his grandfathers knee which "have stood the test of time over two millennia", people will find it far easier to relate to that sort of BS. And they will. Christ, you have Tony Blair as a very recent ex-PM, you should know exactly how propaganda works!

I can agree that there need to be ground rules for debate but if scientists are going to actually refuse debate, where does that stop? Does it transfer to issues within science? Could Dawkins reasonably refuse debate with, for example, Sloan Wilson with whom he has differences about group selection? Should they just talk past one another?

I think the key thing is for any debate - other than Python-esque humourous ones - is for there to be an actual subject to debate - something with pros and cons and evidence both ways. Debating with creationists is exactly like debating with NAMBLA - there is no defence whatsoever for their position, yet they are keen to debate it with experts, because it gives them legitimacy.

I find that a highly appropriate analogy, because creationists are one part of christianity where I do agree with Dawkins (and you know I'm no fan of his) that teaching kids this crap is akin to child abuse. It teaches them to be wilfully ignorant, which is a shocking crime against their children.

Even worse, once the debate has been done, fundies will trumpet - regardless of how ridiculously smashed the fundy is - that the fundy "beat Dawkins in a debate, na na nana na".

I repeat the question asked by others - if Dawkins responds to this idiocy, does he then have to debate Buzzlightyear and his theory the world is made of dragon's eggs? Saizai and his desire to cure ills with prayer? I don't see either of those as any more ridiculous than another, although I hesitate to note that Buzzlightyear looks almost sane by comparison - no sceptic or atheist would deny that dragons actually existed, at least. You only have to look at reaction to Dawkins at the late, unlamented, Jerry Falwell's college. Despite a period of brilliant oratory, smashing religion to pieces, the first fundy leaps up and thanks Dawkins for "confirming his faith".

 

[Anacoluthon64]

In short, then, the dilemma appears to be between those saying Jane Public is too blonde and those saying she's too ill-informed to tell the good arguments from the bad.

Lovely.

My own view is that, while public broadcast debates (radio, TV) are not the optimal vehicle, creationists should be vigorously debated in various written media (e.g. this forum) because it is much harder to wriggle out of an intellectual or factual corner, as pointed out elsewhere. There are two main reasons. First, a refusal to engage them is not only easy to construe (and milk) as cowardice, uncertainty or some equally ill-founded charge, but also appears to lend weight to allegations of the "ivory tower" stereotype that alienates scientists from the public. If we are to reap and foster more general enthusiasm for our endeavours we need, I think, to attend to such activities, tedious and frustrating though they might be.

Second, and more importantly, the analogies made between creationism and other discredited theories (flat earth, geocentrism, disease as a function of unbalanced humours, and so forth) miss, I think, an essential point: the creationism question is one that claims to address our origins at the most fundamental and general level, and knowledge about our origins is extremely valuable because it has the strong potential of yielding clues about our destiny, something that is of much importance to most people, if not all. This forward-looking vantage is, I am sure, also why the issue remains so doggedly contentious, and why it is bigger than just a debate about facts. Therefore, I feel it is all the more incumbent on us to point out the flaws wherever we meet them.

'Luthon64

 

[JoeEllison]

Science is different and onlookers cannot deduce an objective winner from competing exercises in propaganda. If competing propaganda is all they get - they cannot even form an impartial opinion of their own.

But, in the debate format, especially the sort favored by the Creationists, all you can possibly get it propaganda. And, since the Creationists can and will lie at every opportunity, while a scientist is bound by the facts, it is an inappropriate forum for onlookers to get information from.

 

[Fredrik]

I voted yes. I think scientists should participate in public debates with creationists. It's of course impossible to convince someone as deluded as Kent Hovind that he's wrong, but I think scientists should think of these "debates" as opportunities to educate the audience about things like:

* what science is
* what the word "theory" means
* what the theory of evolution actually says
* how we know that evolution is a fact

In my opinion, the scientist should spend at least 75% of their time on this, and spend as little time as possible on the actual "debate", because as we all know, there isn't much to debate.

The scientist should also demand (very persistently) that the creationist explains what he/she would consider evidence of evolution. The answer is often something like "a monkey giving birth to a human", and this gives the scientist an opportunity to educate the audience further. Most of them will be surprised to learn that what creationists would accept as evidence of evolution actually contradicts the theory.

 

[Mobyseven]

Shocker. You should never raise that one, because it's a mutation, not evolution. If evolution were real, with so many mutations, influenza viruses would now be automatic dishwashers.

Or bananas.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being serious (about not using influenza as an example, not the banana thing).

Are you?

 

[Jimbo07]

So as you sit there and ingest your vegetables - grown with thanks to modern biochemicals, modern horticulture and modern genetic engineering techniques - and write your rants on a computer developed by the very scientists you lambaste so, all you manage to do is highlight the very pinnacle of your own hypocrisy.

I find this very frustrating. This is something like what military members are getting at when they comment about protestors. In the west, they are defending the rights of those protestors to protest the very military defending their rights!

Likewise people use technologies (computers is the biggest) to communicate their messages of hatred or ignorance about the very process that led to them being able to use these technologies!

Everyone is interested in origins and destiny, maybe, but the present practical realities of discovering, developing and using technologies responsibly should have some priority or credibility over fairy tales in public discourse.

In short (pardon the emotion),

grrr...

 

[fishbob]

True. But the statement that I was objecting to was that Behe was no more of a scientist than Dr Seuss. Like it or not, Behe is some kind of scientist. He's even a scientist in a field relevant to evolution.

We agree.
This does not prevent Behe from being derided and debunked for claiming science where none exists - creationism / ID and criticism of evolution.
Behe has abandoned science for false ideology (and perhaps a big fat paycheck) and so should be accorded much less respect than Dr. Suess.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm trying to figure out if you're being serious (about not using influenza as an example, not the banana thing).

Are you?

Half and half really. I don't think the influenza virus is a great example, because it's not any kind of evolution, as far as I'm aware.

 

[JoeEllison]

Half and half really. I don't think the influenza virus is a great example, because it's not any kind of evolution, as far as I'm aware.

Probably the purest form of evolution, don't you think?

 

[tsig]

What makes you say the issue is settled? What are you trying to hide. A flat earth is testable. Evolution is not. Neither is creation. therefore you have to go back to the fundamentals of science and see which fits the picture.

To me, the refusal to debate is a sign of a weak and insecure position. What is there to hide that scientists so vociferously oppose debating?

The comes a point when cooler heads and common sense have to rise above overconfidence and mass ignorance or else we would still be blood letting trying to cure people or believing that flies come from rotting meat.

If the emperor does indeed have clothes on, they why are you secularists so afraid for others to see them?

I can prove the earth is flat.

 

[tsig]

Easy! (too bad the other dude didn't beat you to the question).

By definition a creationist would not debate a creationist to determine whether there is an argument against creation. So logically all that is left is the secularist.

I am surprised you asked such a question. "In an A or B situation, if you are not A, you have to be B".

Life is not an A and B situation.