Shermer battles Creationist Loon

[Loon]

I like the idea that people tuning in to see the evolutionist get his ass kicked might think things over.

And for the record, I am not a creationist.

 

[Zep]

The easiest way to "win" such "debates" is to ensure that the topic is the correct one. So often it is turned into "Creationism versus Evolution", which always boils down to he-said she-said no-win kinda stuff.

The solution, and most telling, is to make the topic "Is Creationism Science?" or "The Science of Creationism". Put the emphasis back on creationists to uphold their contention that their philosophy IS actually science and done scientifically. Leave "evolution" as a subject right out of it at all times. Not even as a comparison point. In fact, ESPECIALLY not as a comparison point. The moment it gets dragged in, the debate devolves back into the no-win situation above. Should he stray this way, have the moderator ensure that he sticks to the topic, or at least point it out very clearly that he is way off the required topic.

Having set the subject, the next trick is to do the creationist's lecture for him, meanwhile taking it apart comprehensively. Kent Hovind (for that's who we are talking about here) has a standard line of patter with standard unbendable ripostes to all the salient "evolutionist" objections (they're utter crap, but they exist - that's what's important to the masses). This means they can be learned and prepared for beforehand, with full debunking facilities at your disposal. Then, by simply presenting the creationist's lecture as he would do it himself, and comprehensively debunking every point along the way, it leaves him little room for anything but a weak sermon as his offering, because all his guns would have been spiked.

Game over! This DOES work quite well, and has been a winning formula for some years now. Not that it matters a great deal though. People like Kent Hovind are not above completely misrepresenting their crashing-spectacularly-in-flames debacles as "stunning successes against the heathens" to their avid income-providers...erm...fellow creationists.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Yes, I've seen that happen. Creationists can sure shovel a lot of B.S. in a short period of time, can't they?

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.

Hopefully, a good debator will be able to simplify the arguments, and perhaps launch a few of his own criticisms of creationism. Of course, it depends on having well-rehearsed (and hopefully entertaining) people on the evolutionist side.

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.

Although a debate is a 'no-win' situation, not challenging creationists is also a no-win situation, as their incorrect information will continually get spread around. At least if we debate them, we may get at least a few people to engage their brain.

 

[Silicon]

What about using ALL your time on something like the 2nd law.

Explaining it fully, in depth, so that there's no misunderstanding.


And THEN, go back and find Hovind quotes where he obviously has zero grasp of this most basic law of science. And make the connection, that if HE can't even grasp THIS MOST BASIC LAW, that schoolchildren can understand, what's the likelihood that he has done any of his homework?

 

[pgwenthold]

What about using ALL your time on something like the 2nd law.

That just means that you have left 9 criticisms go unanswered, and only one needs to be correct to show evolution to be wrong.

OTOH, the time it takes to explain the 2nd law is far more than alloted, considering that you have to start back at the first law, which means that you have to start by discussing concepts of heat and work and how they can result. By the time you are getting to the Carnot cycle to demonstrate it, there won't be too many left at your presentation. By the time you hit the Clausius inequality, the succint description of the 2nd law, it will the next day.

And all you've done is left 9 unanswered questions about evolution.

 

[Silicon]

I'm not so sure about that.

I once shut a creationist down at work by showing him that he had the wrong idea about the Second Law. I told him that all you had to do was add energy and you get order. I then reminded him of where all the energy in the world comes from.

He said that it takes intelligence to create order. (Dumbass)

I said, nope. Just energy. I said "Stick two electrodes in a glass of water. Turn on the electricity. The Hydrogen and Oxygen start to seperate. All the hydrogen gas goes to one side, all the o2 to the other side. Voila. I've created order by adding energy.

What I did was STICK to the 2nd law. He tried to throw out evolution, piltdown man, etc. Every time I just said "I'm not talking about that. I'm just saying that your definition of the Second Law isn't what Newton said."

(Fundies like arguments from authority. All I had to do was throw Newton's name around enough, and he shut up.)

 

[pgwenthold]

What I did was STICK to the 2nd law. He tried to throw out evolution, piltdown man, etc. Every time I just said "I'm not talking about that. I'm just saying that your definition of the Second Law isn't what Newton said."

Am I being an a$$ if I point out that neither is yours?

(Fundies like arguments from authority. All I had to do was throw Newton's name around enough, and he shut up.)

The irony is that Newton had nothing to do with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics (not to be confused with Newton's second law of motion F = ma). If he had had a clue, you could have been in serious trouble. Fortunately, you knew he was a creationist and therefore you had nothing to fear...

 

[Silicon]

Sorry, you dangle it out there to say that I'm wrong.

Could you correct me, and that way I'll have a chance at being right next time? ;-)

 

[pgwenthold]

Sorry, you dangle it out there to say that I'm wrong.

Could you correct me, and that way I'll have a chance at being right next time? ;-)

I don't think the 2nd Law of Thermo is ever attributed to a single person. The big wigs in the field at the time were folks like Carnot, Gibbs, and Kelvin I think (with many others).

If you want to pin it on one person, go to Clausius. The Clausius inequality (dS > q/T) is probably the most succint statement of the 2nd Law, but I don't know if it was Clausius who invented it. M friends who do the stuff tell me that Gibbs was probably the most brilliant of the bunch (although his game is more chemical potentials), but I think Kelvin was no one to sneeze on, either.

Newton was 50 odd years before thermodynamics.

paul

 

[Silicon]

Thanks!

 

[Art Vandelay]

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?

If these people offered a valid $1million prize for a refutation of their points, it would last about five minutes before being claimed. The strength of the JREF challenge is "Why would anyone pass up $1million?" With these debates, what does the evolutionist stand to gain? Of course, there are plenty of people offering "prizes" that are worded so that no one can claim them, as in "Prove evolution to my satisfaction and I'll give you $X" when it's clear that this person will never accept evolutionary theory, no matter how much evidence is presented. I've even seen people trying to use the JREF challenge as support: "Evolution violates basic laws of science, there's a prize for anyone who can prove the existence of something which violates basic laws of science, the prize hasn't been claimed, so evolution is false".

As for the creationist throwing out so much stuff that the evolutionist can't respond to it, a counter tactic would be for the evolutionist to write down every point on a separate pice of papper, and arrange them on a roulette wheel. Then he announces "Absolutely none of these points have any validity. I'm going to choose one at random, and I'm sure that I'll come up with one that's easily refuted, because they ALL are easily refuted." Then do so.

Another strategy might be to take countermeasures against the creationist using persuasive, but invalid, arguments. Creationists like to use lawyer tricks, without the safeguards against those tricks. What if a debate were run according to the laws of evidence? Get an actual judge to moderate, and either debater can interrupt with objections at any time.
"Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things."
"Objection, begging the question."
"Sustained"

Something else that evolutionists should do is to get the creationist to formulate a specific thesis that can be argued objectively. Something like "Creationism makes more sense than evolution" is not going to lead to productive debate, because it is a completely subjective statement, and it will invite completely subjective arguments.

Finally, if one wishes to refuse a debate, one might do so in a way that makes it clear that one is not opposed to debate, but to the attempt by the creationist to arrange things in their favor. For instance, say "I'd be happy to have such and such a debate" and when they say "That's not the debate we want" and try to claim that the evolutionists are refusing to debate, one can respond "No, we are quite willing to debate. It is the creationists who are refusing to accept our terms".