Shermer battles Creationist Loon

[UnTrickaBLe]

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html

Interesting story here about Michael Shermer debating a "Young Earth Creationist" at UC Irvine recently. The same nutjob who has a "Creationist Dinosaur Adventure Park."

It was probably stupid to walk into a situation so stacked against science and reason, but Shermer admits that.

 

[Yahweh]

Shermer loves to debate, dont he?

 

[Felice]

It was probably stupid to walk into a situation so stacked against science and reason

I thought it was more of a win / win situation for Shermer really. If he had done really poorly then he only risked turning off 10% of the audience. OTOH, if he did well he could have pushed a few people onto the path of atheism.

The alternative of not showing up sends the message that we have something to fear from religious lunatics. I'm glad that he went and I hope brights continue to debate creationists when the need arises.

Edited for clarity

 

[Beancounter]

I have to agree with you there Felice, but the problem is that I am not sure that it is really a "debate" when the creationists (like most woo-woo's) just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat the same mantras over and over again.

In the discussions I have had with people on this topic at times I have got very frustrated and felt like resorting to physical violence - and that coming from an accountant!!

The process may be slow and my concern is that the converts are outnumbered by the children being sold the same story.

 

[Yahweh]

OTOH, if he did well he could have pushed a few people onto the path of atheism.

Not per se, but perhaps demonstrate with proper logic and science the well-established veracity of evolution.

 

[UnTrickaBLe]

I have to agree with you there Felice, but the problem is that I am not sure that it is really a "debate" when the creationists (like most woo-woo's) just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat the same mantras over and over again.

In the discussions I have had with people on this topic at times I have got very frustrated and felt like resorting to physical violence ...

Been there.

 

[pgwenthold]

I thought it was more of a win / win situation for Shermer really. If he had done really poorly then he only risked turning off 10% of the audience. OTOH, if he did well he could have pushed a few people onto the path of atheism.

The alternative of not showing up sends the message that we have something to fear from religious lunatics. I'm glad that he went and I hope brights continue to debate creationists when the need arises.

Edited for clarity

We had a thread about this before it happened. My position: it is lose/lose.

The main thing that needs to be impressed upon these clowns is that science does not happen through debates before a general audience, who don't know enough to be able to discern credible statements with bs.

If Looney Creationist wants to debate creation vs evolution, s/he should just submit for a talk at the next conference of the Biological Society. There will be plenty of people there willing to debate the topic. Of course, that is what they do at these types of things, so it is not a big deal. Of course the creationist would never do this because s/he realizes there will be lots of folks who know a lot more about the topic than they do, and they won't be able to get away with a bs argument like evolution violates the 2nd law.

Shermer's participation in this crap is a diservice to science. Science is not about public debates in a general forum. Science is carried out in scientific settings, especially the literature.

 

[CFLarsen]

Shermer's participation in this crap is a diservice to science. Science is not about public debates in a general forum. Science is carried out in scientific settings, especially the literature.

Beg to differ.

By debating, Shermer is not doing science, he is explaining science.

 

[Pantastic]

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand debunking this rubbish helps people to see what the real evidence is. But also, it gives the false impression that somehow there is a valid debate between creationism and evolution - and there is not.

But to refuse to debate is to give out the message that somehow we are afraid of being shown to be wrong. After all, don't many of us take the fact that psychics etc refuse to take the JREF prize test as evidence that their claims are false? Does our refusing to debate creationist lunatics give the impression that we are afraid of being shown to be wrong?

 

[Beancounter]

In any debate (one would hope) there would be neutrals in the audience or, in the case of evolution v creation, a few of the creationists who may be wavering due to the general weight of evidence supporting evolution.

Provided the pro-evolution debater isn't a complete dead loss they ought to be able to demonstrate, by rational argument and empirical evidence, that evolution actually happened. In doing so they should also be able to make it clear that the creation theory(ies) is just a fluid concept that has had to become more ridiculous as each new piece of evidence for evolution is presented. Neutrals or waverers should be convinced.

For this reason I think that debate can't hurt - provided it is carried out in the knowledge that one is dealing with many people who are highly unlikely to see "reason" as it directly challenges their raison d'etre. I don't believe one should become condescending or superior about it and refuse to debate. It is merely a form of education, but as we are dealing with an institutionalised myth, the hardest one by far.

 

[Felice]

Does our refusing to debate creationist lunatics give the impression that we are afraid of being shown to be wrong?

I believe so. I also agree with CFLarsen that ``Shermer is not doing science''.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
My position: it is lose/lose.

The main thing that needs to be impressed upon these clowns is that science does not happen through debates before a general audience, who don't know enough to be able to discern credible statements with bs.

I don't think that's what debates are for. My view is that debates allow people to air their platforms, criticise opponents and respond to criticism. In this sense I think (fair) debates are a great opportunity for skeptics to `preach' to believers (or scientists to Christians).

 

[pgwenthold]

Beg to differ.

By debating, Shermer is not doing science, he is explaining science.

I would be all in favor if he went up and said, "This forum is not the place to discuss the scientific evidence for evolution or creationism. If you want to debate that, I invite you to submit for participation at any scientific conference on the topic, and to publish research in the scientific literature, because that is how science is done. I invite all you in the audience to come watch the proceedings."

If he did that, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, that is not what happens.

 

[pgwenthold]

But to refuse to debate is to give out the message that somehow we are afraid of being shown to be wrong.

Read what I wrote. I don't advocate "refusing to debate." I advocate forcing them to do science.

If a scientist refuses an invitation to "debate" some creationist at the local Fellowship for Christian Athletes meeting, all they are doing is not falling for the creationist game. On the other hand, if a creationist refuses to participate in the scientific process, then they are admitting that they aren't doing science.

The problem with these debates are that they give the impression that this is in anyway a legitimate means for carrying out science. They aren't. They are nothing.

There is a reason that the creationists love this forum. Because they are talking to a non-learned audience, they can spew any nonsense that they want in large quantities. The scientist can either let them go unchallenged or try to refute every point. In the former, the audience is stuck trying to decide between some detailed, complex scientific concepts, or simple, tidy (and incorrect, but they don't know that) concepts that seem to make sense. If the scientist refutes everything, they just look like they are on the defensive without anything of their own to really say.

Invite them to a scientific forum where everyone has the knowledge base to discern obviously untrue statements and they are meat, and they know it.

 

[CFLarsen]

I would be all in favor if he went up and said, "This forum is not the place to discuss the scientific evidence for evolution or creationism. If you want to debate that, I invite you to submit for participation at any scientific conference on the topic, and to publish research in the scientific literature, because that is how science is done. I invite all you in the audience to come watch the proceedings."

If he did that, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, that is not what happens.

I think you are underestimating the influence a "voice of science" can have. It is not my impression that creationists are all that exposed to scientific discoveries, and to hear someone who can argue from a rational POV might not be common chow for them.

What do you suggest? Leave "black spots" on the map of the United States of America? I don't think so.

In my experience, it is the woowoos who are most afraid of these debates. Just think of Karen Boesen, who has threatened with physical violence, if any skeptic appears at her lectures!!

It isn't enough to "do" science. We must also "explain" it.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think you are underestimating the influence a "voice of science" can have. It is not my impression that creationists are all that exposed to scientific discoveries, and to hear someone who can argue from a rational POV might not be common chow for them.

What do you suggest? Leave "black spots" on the map of the United States of America? I don't think so.

Not at all. That is what school is for. These sham "debates" do nothing in that regard.

In my experience, it is the woowoos who are most afraid of these debates. Just think of Karen Boesen, who has threatened with physical violence, if any skeptic appears at her lectures!!

It isn't enough to "do" science. We must also "explain" it.

But they don't do that! If Shermer was to "explain" science, he wouldn't touch any of the creationist points except to say, "This debate is not the forum to talk about specifics and evidence for or against. If my opponent would like to discuss the evidence, I invite him/her to publish his/her work in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and to attend scientific conferences. There is a Gordon conference in Maine in July on Evolution, where evidence for and against evolution will be debated in depth. This is how and where scientific progress is made."

If you want to teach people about science, this is what you tell them. You don't try to tell them about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, DNA, and polonium halos. But in the end, that is what happens.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not at all. That is what school is for. These sham "debates" do nothing in that regard.

Disagree. Science can be taught anywhere, at any point in people's lives. Education does not stop at graduation.

But they don't do that! If Shermer was to "explain" science, he wouldn't touch any of the creationist points except to say, "This debate is not the forum to talk about specifics and evidence for or against. If my opponent would like to discuss the evidence, I invite him/her to publish his/her work in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and to attend scientific conferences. There is a Gordon conference in Maine in July on Evolution, where evidence for and against evolution will be debated in depth. This is how and where scientific progress is made."

If you want to teach people about science, this is what you tell them. You don't try to tell them about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, DNA, and polonium halos. But in the end, that is what happens.

But these people don't understand the difference. They don't understand that there is a huge difference between blind religious faith and serious scientific progress. That's why they keep demanding "equal time". They won't go to scientific conferences, they won't read peer-reviewed scientific literature, because they don't understand how that works.

What are we going to do? Shrug and say "Hey, too bad, you'll never get the chance to listen to reason"? No, we try to reach them, anyway we can.

 

[pgwenthold]

Disagree. Science can be taught anywhere, at any point in people's lives. Education does not stop at graduation.

Teaching the scientific process needs to happen. This is not any way close to a reasonable forum for teaching scientific facts or discussing evidence. That is not what should happen.

Teach them the scientific process only.

But these people don't understand the difference.

And they aren't going to understand science if they think that a public debate to a general audience has anything to do with it.

I completely concur that the thing that needs to be done is to teach them about science. But it doesn't happen. As soon as Shermer starts talking about the details of the 2nd law, he is stepping out of bounds, he is trying to teach them science, not teaching them _about_ science.

The most important thing to teach them about science at these debates is that public debates for general audience do not constitute anything resembling the scientific process. If they want to talk about the scientific method, fine, you can tell them about that. But stay away from debating anything about the evidence. As I described, it's a no win situation. You either sound defensive, or bore them with details that they don't have the basis to understand.

If you can tell me that Shermer just talked about the scientific process, and avoided debating the evidence, I can deal with it. But I seriously doubt that is what happened.

 

[Segnosaur]

Teaching the scientific process needs to happen. This is not any way close to a reasonable forum for teaching scientific facts or discussing evidence. That is not what should happen.

Teach them the scientific process only.

You're forgetting the 2 most important facts to consider:
#1 - People are morons
#2 - People are lazy

Yes, it would be better if everyone knew the scientific method and how findings are published. But, your average person will hear from their creationist friend "Here is a problem with evolution". If the only response that a scientist makes is "here's how we figure out what happened", the majority of people aren't going to be willing to put the effort into looking up how the creationist's arguments are wrong and the error will go unchallenged.

And they aren't going to understand science if they think that a public debate to a general audience has anything to do with it.

I completely concur that the thing that needs to be done is to teach them about science. But it doesn't happen. As soon as Shermer starts talking about the details of the 2nd law, he is stepping out of bounds, he is trying to teach them science, not teaching them _about_ science.

The most important thing to teach them about science at these debates is that public debates for general audience do not constitute anything resembling the scientific process.

While I agree that such public debates before a general audience do not resemble the scientific process, it may be one of the only ways that pro-creationist (but ignorant) people can be shown errors in their beliefs. In the end, the result is more political than academic, but given the fact that its politics that has been responsible for trying to force creationist beliefs that's where the battle must unfortuantely take place.

 

[pgwenthold]

You're forgetting the 2 most important facts to consider:
#1 - People are morons
#2 - People are lazy

Yes, it would be better if everyone knew the scientific method and how findings are published. But, your average person will hear from their creationist friend "Here is a problem with evolution". If the only response that a scientist makes is "here's how we figure out what happened", the majority of people aren't going to be willing to put the effort into looking up how the creationist's arguments are wrong and the error will go unchallenged.

I agree that this is not something that is very effective. The scientist comes off as evasive.

While I agree that such public debates before a general audience do not resemble the scientific process, it may be one of the only ways that pro-creationist (but ignorant) people can be shown errors in their beliefs.

Unfortunately, this doesn't happen, either. Consider the standard process: creationist throws out a list of nonsense BS that appear to be attacks on evolution. Scientist spends their entire time refuting all the claims, point by point. All the audience sees is that the scientist is on the defensive. Moreover, he has to go through great lengths to explain in detail these complicated things, whereas the creationist statements seemed pretty simple and straightforward.

Now, everything the creationist says is bs, but the audience doesn't have the background to know that. Thus, in the end it is the creationists word against the scientists. The creationist says that "Entropy says that evolution can't happen. You know entropy, it is the thing that says that your room gets messier instead of cleaner." The scientist then goes into a spiel about the basis of the 2nd law and closed-systems, etc, but it doesn't matter. For the audience it is a 50/50 preposition.

The creationist says, "look at these pictures, you can see human footprints right next to the dinosaur prints. Humans and dinos lived at the same time." The scientist says, "Careful analysis of the characteristics of the supposed human footprints show that they only look human because of weathering." You know what the response would be? "See, he admits that they look human. It is only his anti-god scientific bias that makes him deny they are human prints."

The scientist can't win a point by point attack by addressing each point. If you aren't seen as on the defensive, with no basis of your own (isn't that a laugh?), you are going to going to fail because there are too many criticisms for you to handle.

That's why I say a debate is a no-win situation. You can't win by playing the game their way, and you can't win by playing the game the way it should be played. The only solution is to not play their game. If you want to educate people, create your own game.

 

[Silicon]

I tend to agree.

I say fight sophistry with sophistry, if you're in this kind of stacked-deck, silly forum.

"Everyone raise your hand who believes, like me, that tax dodgers in a time of war are traitors!"


Hovind needed his ass kicked. He needed to be made to look like an ill-prepared fool.

Nobody wants to identify themselves with the losing side. Look like a winner in this forum and you are a winner.

The problem is, Shermer seems to think that being normal, low-key and respectful wins over people in attendance.