• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should scientists debate creationists?

Should scientists debate creationists?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 40 32.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 68 55.7%

  • Other.

    Votes: 14 11.5%
  • Total voters
    122
  • Poll closed .

Questioninggeller

Illuminator
Q
Joined
May 11, 2002
Messages
3,048
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 wrote:

Then A Miracle Occurs...
An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young-Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith
by Michael Shermer
...
The problem is that this is not an intellectual exercise, it is an emotional drama. For scientists, the dramatis personae are evolutionists vs creationists, the former of whom have an impregnable fortress of evidence that converges on an unmistakable conclusion; for creationists, however, the evidence is irrelevant. This is a spiritual war, whose combatants are theists vs atheists, spiritualists vs secularists, Christians vs Satanists, godfearing capitalists vs godless communists, good vs evil. With stakes this high, and an audience so stacked, what chance does any scientist have in such a venue? Thus, I now believe it is a mistake for scientists to participate in such debates and I will not do another. Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable (evolution vs creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion.
Click to expand...

Full article: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/620_then_a_miracle_occurs_12_30_1899.asp

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Why I Won't Debate Creationists
Reason
May 15, 2006
by Richard Dawkins

For good or ill, the late Stephen Jay Gould had a huge influence on American scientific culture, and on balance the good came out on top. His powerful voice will echo on for a long time. Although he and I disagreed about much, we shared much too, including a spellbound delight in the wonders of the natural world, and a passionate conviction that such wonders deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation.

Another thing about which we agreed was our refusal to engage in public debates with creationists. Steve had even more reason than me to be irritated by them. They distorted the theory of punctuated equilibrium so that it appeared to support their preposterous (but astonishingly common) belief that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Gould's reply deserves to be widely known:
...
Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.
...
I hope that my recollection of Stephen Gould's wise words will encourage others to refuse all debating invitations from pseudoscientists avid for publicity. 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. Alternatively, I plead a prior engagement: an important forthcoming debate against the Flat Earth Society.
Click to expand...
Full article: http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins
 
I think scientists should do what they want but I agree with Gould. The debate looks far better on the creationist's resume than it does on the scientist's.

The problem a scientist runs into is that they must educate the audience on what evolution really is, show exactly why creationists are wrong and they must rebutt every BS statement the creationist makes . . . all in the allotted time.

A creationist simply has to make too many absurd statements for the scientist to rebutt. Even if half of their points are proven false, it is seen that the other half are correct when, in fact, the scientist just didn't have time to address them.
 
Last edited:
Joseph Mastropaolo

Regarding the Joseph Mastropaolo, mentioned above in the Dawkins article, according to Mastropaolo's CV, he is a Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa (1958) retired professor from CSU, Long Beach and current Institute for Creation Research professor.

His webpage, "Biology verses Evolution," is on the CSU, LB server: http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/ with all kinds of lies, such as, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible." Note under Darwin's picture it says "Occult Art."

Also Mastropaolo has/had some silly $10,000 challenge
 
Last edited:
This issue is well beyond settled, so why debate it? It implies that there is still something to debate about. Scientists should dismiss requests for debates with "I don' t debate the flat earth, I don't debate the earth being the center of the universe, and for the same reasons I don't debate creationists. Now run along."
 
If secular scientists are so confident, why are they so afraid?

I see secular scientists claim they won't debate intelligent design and creationists and they give a pretty lame excuse that they will get "emotional discourse" instead of scientific ones.

I have seen debates between secular scientists and creationists. The secular scientists are the ones that get emotional and even try to invoke the bible though the subject is never brought up by either of these two groups.

I have yet to see a creationist's fundamental arguments every be addressed by the secularists. They always say "it just happens". That's anything but scientific or intelligent discourse.

Secularism is a religion that is emotionally defended. It is a faith and a religion just like all belief systems of thinking human beings. What is dishonest discourse is when it tries to distinguish itself from other belief systems. Only a brain that doesn't function has no beliefs no assumptions and lacks absolutes.

That's my experience.
 
Hittman said:
This issue is well beyond settled, so why debate it? It implies that there is still something to debate about. Scientists should dismiss requests for debates with "I don' t debate the flat earth, I don't debate the earth being the center of the universe, and for the same reasons I don't debate creationists. Now run along."
Click to expand...

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 don't think so either. Dawkins' argument is very persuasive. Gayak, so is yours; I think it's a major problem with live debates. As to whether they (scientists) should go to the trouble of explaining the problems with cretinism on the 'Net, a la TalkOrigins, on the other hand, I give the opposite answer: yes, they should. That format does not suffer from the problem Gayak points out; and it doesn't result in publicity for cretinists that they would not otherwise get.
 
Scientists should not. Entertainers, sure. If the Jeebus freaks are going to put up clowns, they deserve to face off against clowns.
 
Above are posted some quotes of those who have debated creationists and claim it was spiritual or emotional, etc. I have never seen creationists or intelligent design theorists bring up religion or spirituality in a scientific debate. These subjects come up when a secularists get cornered in scientific argument and bring up "with desperation and great emotion" religion, spiritual things, biblical claims, etc. It is a smoke screen to hide their exposure in a blind faith that is not science but typically secularism.


But despite the claims of these secularists, these conclusions are for the audience to determine. NOT the debater. A man's testimony of himself is nothing. It does not matter if I say "I won the debate", it only matters if the audience says it. I interpret these responses as "phew! I am never getting back into that science grinder, that was embarrassing. Stay away from creationists and IDers because they will hang you with your own words!"
 
delphi_ote said:
Scientists should not. Entertainers, sure. If the Jeebus freaks are going to put up clowns, they deserve to face off against clowns.
Click to expand...

Creationists and Intelligent Designers are scientists. Some of the worlds most renowned scientists. This is bigotry.
 
rittjc said:
I have seen debates between secular scientists and creationists. The secular scientists are the ones that get emotional and even try to invoke the bible though the subject is never brought up by either of these two groups.

I have yet to see a creationist's fundamental arguments every be addressed by the secularists. They always say "it just happens". That's anything but scientific or intelligent discourse.

Secularism is a religion that is emotionally defended. It is a faith and a religion just like all belief systems of thinking human beings. What is dishonest discourse is when it tries to distinguish itself from other belief systems. Only a brain that doesn't function has no beliefs no assumptions and lacks absolutes.

That's my experience.
Click to expand...
When you say that's your experience, you are either lying or deluded.
Can you provide just one example of a scientist, in a debate or anywhere, saying evolution 'just happens'?
Or an example of a scientist 'invoking the bible'?
Secularism is a religion? Do you know what 'secularism' means? Use an old fashioned dictionary rather than play fast and loose with the English language.
 
rittjc said:
I have seen debates between secular scientists and creationists. The secular scientists are the ones that get emotional and even try to invoke the bible though the subject is never brought up by either of these two groups.
Click to expand...

Why are you putting the word "secular" in front of "scientist" like that? Don't you know what it means? I would if I used it ten times in one post.
 
I voter 'other'.

Scientists should show up, point, and laugh.

The disease of the mind must be treated with the medicine of the mind, humour. :)
 
rittjc said:
Creationists and Intelligent Designers are scientists. Some of the worlds most renowned scientists. This is bigotry.
Click to expand...
If by "renowned" you mean "fawned on by zealots," then sure. Actual hard working scientists, on the other hand, have better things to do than support fairy tales with bad arguments.

If you disagree, you could name the "renowned" scientist in their ranks. Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom