Should scientists debate creationists?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow, this thread has gone in a lot of interesting directions. I've scanned it but did not read every word, so forgive me if the point I make is redundant. Without placing any blame on either side or worrying about legitimizing a viewpoint that one personally feels is undeserving, I think there is a fundamental reason why evolutionists and creationists should not debate: Meaningful debate is not possible unless all parties agree in advance on basic ground rules such as what constitutes "proof."

A jury in a murder trial can listen to the cases for and against the accused and then reach a consensus only because all parties have agreed in advance on the standard of proof that must be met to determine someone guilty. But what if the prosecution and defense did not even agree on what "murder" is, in a hypothetical sense, or on the degree of certainty required for a juror to declare that a murder had occurred? What if the judge handed jurors two sets of rules and told each of them to pick one? They would rarely if ever reach a meaningful consensus.

Arguing your case under a preestablished set of rules is difficult enough, but without first agreeing on the rules it becomes impossible and pointless.

Requiring the 'rules of the debate first' is one way to address the persuasion tactics. I agree with you there. But a blanket refusal to debate feeds the "science is biased against religion' fallacy. You need to pick your fights.

 

[articulett]

Requiring the 'rules of the debate first' is one way to address the persuasion tactics. I agree with you there. But a blanket refusal to debate feeds the "science is biased against religion' fallacy. You need to pick your fights.

In my experience, there is no evidence that any creationist will accept that argues against creationism...you can ask them exactly what evidence they require and, if they don't obfuscate, you can give them that exact evidence, but like those who take the JREF challenge, they'll never allow themselves to admit they may have been mistaken. On the other hand, they will offer up anecdote and semantic games dressup with emotionalism and a factoid or two a present it as a complete theory and act aghast should you point out how ephemeral or nonsensical such claims are. The conversations tends to be about everything accept actual evidence in support of one notion or another.

At least I'd get agreement from the get go--that however human kind arose, we all have the same answer...and many of us are wrong. Then you can at least address how to go about finding that answer...the measurable evidence that is the same no matter what you believe... DNA, for example.

 

[Dymanic]

We are not as well versed in the science of persuasion as the religion promoters (in this case) are.

I definitely agree with that.

we need to be at least as skilled at the art of persuasion as the religion agenda promoters.

But I'm not sure I agree with that. Something about the notion of "persuasion" seems incompatible with genuine critical thinking.

Indistinguishable from his first axiom, the creationist's final conclusion -- "God did it" -- is as insurmountable a barrier to further scientific investigation as any words in the language ("I'm pregnant" also comes to mind). For the creationist, as long as you arrive at that conclusion, it doesn't matter so much how you got there, and examples of dishonest creationists for whom the end justifies the means are numerous and glaring. If his capacity for introspection permits only limited insight into his own motives for attempting to persuade others, he needs little anyway, because his bible instructs him to do so.

In a perfect world, scientists would never be influenced by cultural biases, personal agendas, funding concerns, or pride, but would be the purest of critical thinkers who would present their findings (through public debate or any other means) only so as to enlist the aid of other critical thinkers in identifying possible flaws. In the real world, this isn't quite how things actually work, but it's still a worthwhile ideal to strive for. Ideally then, the scientist should never say: "here is what you should conclude", but rather: "here is the evidence, here is what I conclude from it, and here is the logic I used in reaching my conclusions". In other words, the scientist should not attempt to use any tactics to persuade; the evidence and the logic either do that for themselves... or they don't.

If there is any defense against the dark art of persuasion, it can only be through better educating the masses in the fundamentals of critical thinking (and maybe some math and chemistry and a little stats) -- but I wouldn't look for much progress in the heat of an "us-versus-them" Debate.

 

[VanillaCone]

Requiring the 'rules of the debate first' is one way to address the persuasion tactics. I agree with you there. But a blanket refusal to debate feeds the "science is biased against religion' fallacy. You need to pick your fights.

I respectfully disagree. What scientists should do is raise a big ruckus about the creationists' refusal to participate in constructing a mutually acceptable framework for the debate. They should wage an all-out publicity war on the slippery creationists' unwillingness to set any standards -- evidential, forensic or otherwise -- to which both sides must adhere. They should demand publicly that the creationists first explain what, if anything, would constitute valid proof of evolution. They should publicly dare the creationists to do these things, and tell them not to waste our time calling for a debate until they are ready to have a real debate. They should say publicly that it's pointless to engage in any contest with no rules and no defined objective. They should publish ads in the major newspapers that show fossils on one side and Adam and Eve on the other side under the apple tree with the serpent, and a caption that says, "Our scientific theory may have holes and gaps, but their holy theory is wholly crap."

 

[articulett]

"Our scientific theory may have holes and gaps, but their holy theory is wholly crap."

Is that an original? I may plagiarize. As far as persuasion goes...people are more likely to agree with something if it rhymes (e.g. "if the glove don't fit; you must acquit"--"early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy wealthy and wise")

 

[VanillaCone]

Is that an original? I may plagiarize. As far as persuasion goes...people are more likely to agree with something if it rhymes (e.g. "if the glove don't fit; you must acquit"--"early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy wealthy and wise")

Haha -- I'm pretty sure I just made that up. And I completely agree with you -- we don't need more pointless debates. We need Madison Avenue. We need focus groups and targeted demographics. Didn't any of these evolutionary scientists take even a single marketing class?

Here's another catch phrase we could use on the urban/youth demo:

"Don't dis' Uncle Monkey, Bible flunky. ID's junky."

 

[JoeEllison]

Haha -- I'm pretty sure I just made that up. And I completely agree with you -- we don't need more pointless debates. We need Madison Avenue. We need focus groups and targeted demographics. Didn't any of these evolutionary scientists take even a single marketing class?

Here's another catch phrase we could use on the urban/youth demo:

"Don't dis' Uncle Monkey, Bible flunky. ID's junky."

I wonder how far we can go using their tactics before we become "them" as well? I mean, as long as you've got the promotional system set up, why not use it to hype your latest research ahead of peer review and publication?

 

[VanillaCone]

I wonder how far we can go using their tactics before we become "them" as well? I mean, as long as you've got the promotional system set up, why not use it to hype your latest research ahead of peer review and publication?

Damned ethics -- this is why the bad guys always win.

 

[JoeEllison]

Damned ethics -- this is why the bad guys always win.

That's the reason that I can't see much use in debating a creationist: they can and do lie, constantly, in support of their discredited position. Their supporters don't care about facts or honesty, they are only concerned with bolstering their ideology.

You have to wonder why a scientist would be interested in debating a creationist, when the scientist has to back up everything he says, and the creationist can just make stuff up. My understanding is that the best strategy is to watch a previous debate or read a transcript, and hope the creationist doesn't change his slides. That way, you know in advance what lies will be told, and you can quickly refute them.

 

[blutoski]

Except he's a biochemist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behe

Quote:
"He got his PhD in Biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease."

Cheers,
TGHO

Yes, but his papers straddle several fields. His legitemate work in peer-reviewed publications includes a lot of collaboration with micro and immunologists, and his work comes across our desks. Microbiology is not a totally isolated field.

 

[blutoski]

Requiring the 'rules of the debate first' is one way to address the persuasion tactics. I agree with you there. But a blanket refusal to debate feeds the "science is biased against religion' fallacy. You need to pick your fights.

In theory, yes, but in pactice, no. The reason this blanket recommendation came down from NCSE was their experience in exactly this.

Agreements are made; agreements are broken.

This is the problem we see with all woo: the end justifies the means. We saw it in Dover, we see it in the JREF Challenge, and the professional Creationist debaters have the same history.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Yes, but his papers straddle several fields. His legitemate work in peer-reviewed publications includes a lot of collaboration with micro and immunologists, and his work comes across our desks. Microbiology is not a totally isolated field.

I fully understand that, having a background in genetics myself. Just pointing out a minor nitpick.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[articulett]

Yes... it does seem wrong to "debate" the truth. I mean evolution is factual for everyone. It was before we understood it. It is while we understand it better...and it always will be. The facts will just keep being the facts whether other people know about the facts or not. And when we debate them, it seems like it's a debatable issue... as though a jury or emotions or beliefs or dogma could settle the issue. It's hard to know what you are even debating and we just end up addressing their assorted digressions. The creationists ask for evidence of all kinds, don't accept any evidence, and never offer any of their own--just semantic games and notions about how science is faith too and that "you have faith the sun will rise". The questions are loaded... on par with asking "how far to the end of the earth?" And you realize that you need to fill them in a lot of missing scientific knowledge in order to begin to answer the question...and they'll use any pause on your part or detailed science as a way of saying you can't answer. They are never grateful for having their questions answered. They are never excited about new discoveries.

Does something good come from such debates. It was cool watching the Dover trial, and I think people may have learned stuff...if nothing else, I learned how very dishonest, goalpost moving, and obfuscating some people are willing to be to make sure that nobody understands what natural selection is and how much evidence there is which proves that it drives evolution.

I suspect that these debates just give undeserved credibility to the faithful and obfuscate a simple understanding of evolution more than it clarifies. Plus, it allows them to hone the way they say stuff without really saying something completely false...it's more that they use a lot of words to say nothing much at all while while inferring things about science and pretending they are being academically rigorous.

What is there to debate? It adds credence to the idea that there really is some damn controversy as to whether evolution happened or not. Sure, debate them on line all you want...keep them from stupefying others. Plus, they may have been "intelligently designed" for the amusement of skeptics which is why their intelligent designer sends them to us to play

And it's fun to know for certain you're right and they are wrong because you actually understand the facts and they are going out of their way not to. But I think mockery probably works better overall then debate. Sure, it's not nice...but look how impervious T'ai and Kleinman are... it's not like their feelings get hurt easily. And fellow skeptics are amused. Plus, at any moment any creationist could ask any skeptic on this forum for information and they could have it presented to them as clearly as any text book--and modified especially for them with links included --from a multitude of smart people who understand the question and answer quite well-- But they never ever thank anyone for offering just that. They exploit the wonders of science while endlessly propping up their invisible overlord and insulting science and scientists at every turn unless they can twist something a scientist said to somehow support their claim. They pretend to know "higher truths" while dismissing those who might teach them actual facts that they can verify for themselves.

Of course, debating them online allows other people to read and absorb even when creationists can't or don't. But I think respectable scientists should treat creationists as the kooks they are, because any engaging on the part of sincere scientists will only be used to bolster their opinion of their claims and their nonsense non-theory.

I'm not strongly against it. But I'd like some idea of the point of it all before endorsing such an idea... and a bit of evidence to see if it works. I've never even heard a creationist ask a sincere question he wanted answered. Does anyone know of such a debate that convinced anyone of anything they didn't already believe or that lead to something positive?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In my experience, there is no evidence that any creationist will accept that argues against creationism...you can ask them exactly what evidence they require and, if they don't obfuscate, you can give them that exact evidence, but like those who take the JREF challenge, they'll never allow themselves to admit they may have been mistaken. On the other hand, they will offer up anecdote and semantic games dressup with emotionalism and a factoid or two a present it as a complete theory and act aghast should you point out how ephemeral or nonsensical such claims are. The conversations tends to be about everything accept actual evidence in support of one notion or another.

At least I'd get agreement from the get go--that however human kind arose, we all have the same answer...and many of us are wrong. Then you can at least address how to go about finding that answer...the measurable evidence that is the same no matter what you believe... DNA, for example.

You know, I am pondering this very thing in this thread with some guy claiming HIV doesn't cause AIDS. It's obvious he is fixated on some bizarre conspiracy theory, he doesn't understand the science at all, and the discussion is an exercise in futility. It's the typical discussion where you are posting to a brick wall.

So in that case, there is no sense in carrying on any further. I have no idea if there is any approach that will ever matter, but I thought I might quit countering his nonsensical arguments and instead discuss the issue of his irrational beliefs. I doubt there is much further that thread can go. I agree there is no reason to debate people who are fixed in their ignorant bliss.

In that case, I can't imagine there is a group of lurkers who are learning from the discussion. But with the evolution deniers, there are often people either listening or reading along who are still open to the actual facts in the case. So that's what I mean about identifying your target audience. And in these evolution debates there is often a target audience besides the debaters and the cheer leading section they bused to the debate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
But I'm not sure I agree with that. Something about the notion of "persuasion" seems incompatible with genuine critical thinking.

I hear this all the time. It's based on a couple of false premises. The main one is persuasion necessarily means something different that educating. It can, but it doesn't have to. You are persuading a person when you present the facts and evidence in a logical convincing sequence. You are persuading when you point out a straw man argument and so on. Those are just as persuasive techniques as "marketing" techniques.

The second false premise is that persuading implies deceit, trickery, or convincing someone of something false. There is nothing inherent in persuasion which is deceitful. People use persuasion to deceive, but it is the chosen use, not the persuasion itself that has a bad connotation.

And the third false premise is that being well versed in persuasion means the only thing you can then do is use the techniques. We need to know what the tactics are in order to recognize them and point them out when we see them. When you recognize the techniques you are more immune to their effects.

...Indistinguishable from his first axiom, the creationist's final conclusion -- "God did it" -- is as insurmountable a barrier to further scientific investigation as any words in the language

This argument is easily countered with labeling it another layer without any real discovery or further insight. While of course the 'believer' is using the "god did it" to rationalize his/her own beliefs, other people listening in on the debate gain the insight if they didn't already have it about why the god layer is a useless discussion.

And I think the argument that the god layer makes less sense because a god would be more complex not less complex and the Universe moves from less complex to more complex is a useful item to bring up.

...Ideally then, the scientist should never say: "here is what you should conclude", but rather: "here is the evidence, here is what I conclude from it, and here is the logic I used in reaching my conclusions". In other words, the scientist should not attempt to use any tactics to persuade; the evidence and the logic either do that for themselves... or they don't.

But the evidence is persuasive. There is no reason one cannot use evidence to persuade. Here's an example, maybe it will make it more clear.

Evolution denier, "Science classes should include discussion of all theories, not just evolution theory. So intelligent design should be included in science classes."

Evolution supporter, "Science doesn't test for a designer."

Evolution denier, "Science is biased against religion."

Do you see what is happening? The persuasion tactic here is to change the question from 'evolution vs ID' to 'science should include alternative theories'. And, 'science being biased against religion' is a false claim but one easily made when the evolution supporter says something which a person unfamiliar with the concept of what science does and does not do cannot understand.

Knowing about these persuasion techniques you change the debate back when the techniques are used against you.

Evolution denier, "Science classes should include discussion of all theories, not just evolution theory. So intelligent design should be included in science classes."

Evolution supporter, "Intelligent design is based on the concept of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity has been disproved by genetic science. What viable alternatives theories to evolution did you have in mind?"

No confusing discussion that ID isn't science. No letting the evolution denier change to the strawman argument of allowing discussion of alternative theories in science classes.

...If there is any defense against the dark art of persuasion, it can only be through better educating the masses in the fundamentals of critical thinking (and maybe some math and chemistry and a little stats) -- but I wouldn't look for much progress in the heat of an "us-versus-them" Debate.

Critical thinking, and detecting persuasion tactics when you see them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... As far as persuasion goes...people are more likely to agree with something if it rhymes (e.g. "if the glove don't fit; you must acquit"--"early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy wealthy and wise")

Repetition and phrases that stick in the memory (not just rhymes) are typical marketing techniques.

But there are a lot of techniques which are much more subtle than the obvious ones. For example in that same OJ trial, Johnny Cochrane used outrage when the witness claimed to have heard a voice that sounded like a black man. Well we all know there are times one can determine the ethnicity of a voice without seeing the person. The judge fell for Cochrane's outrage acting like that was somehow a bigoted claim. It was not bigoted, nor outrageous. Sure you cannot always tell and you could be wrong, but the jury could have taken that into account.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I respectfully disagree. What scientists should do is raise a big ruckus about the creationists' refusal to participate in constructing a mutually acceptable framework for the debate. They should wage an all-out publicity war on the slippery creationists' unwillingness to set any standards -- evidential, forensic or otherwise -- to which both sides must adhere. They should demand publicly that the creationists first explain what, if anything, would constitute valid proof of evolution. They should publicly dare the creationists to do these things, and tell them not to waste our time calling for a debate until they are ready to have a real debate. They should say publicly that it's pointless to engage in any contest with no rules and no defined objective. They should publish ads in the major newspapers that show fossils on one side and Adam and Eve on the other side under the apple tree with the serpent, and a caption that says, "Our scientific theory may have holes and gaps, but their holy theory is wholly crap."

What is it you think I said that you disagree with? This is consistent with what I said. It may not be the correct tactic for every occasion, but it fits with countering the persuasion tactics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wonder how far we can go using their tactics before we become "them" as well? I mean, as long as you've got the promotional system set up, why not use it to hype your latest research ahead of peer review and publication?

Used incorrectly, you would be defeating the purpose.

OTOH, programs like Bill Nye the Science Guy are a means of marketing science that does not defeat the purpose.

I think it is critical we expose marketing and persuasion tactics. You can't just ignore them. Exposing them is 1,000 times better than simply using them.

 

[JoeEllison]

Used incorrectly, you would be defeating the purpose.

OTOH, programs like Bill Nye the Science Guy are a means of marketing science that does not defeat the purpose.

I think it is critical we expose marketing and persuasion tactics. You can't just ignore them. Exposing them is 1,000 times better than simply using them.

Oh, I agree that we absolutely need to expose marketing and such. To an extent, we even need to learn to use it. And I LOVES me some Bill Nye...

I just worry about the idea that in presenting science in a way that will win debates, some people may be tempted to use the same sort of dishonest tactics as the creationists.

 

[articulett]

Repetition and phrases that stick in the memory (not just rhymes) are typical marketing techniques.

But there are a lot of techniques which are much more subtle than the obvious ones. For example in that same OJ trial, Johnny Cochrane used outrage when the witness claimed to have heard a voice that sounded like a black man. Well we all know there are times one can determine the ethnicity of a voice without seeing the person. The judge fell for Cochrane's outrage acting like that was somehow a bigoted claim. It was not bigoted, nor outrageous. Sure you cannot always tell and you could be wrong, but the jury could have taken that into account.

Yes outrage is a very common technique when facts aren't in your favor.

And obfuscation. Defense attorneys with guilty clients aim to cloud the issue to create doubt.

I like practicing debating creationists here...but it can be frustrating... especially if you think they are sincerely asking for information... or are really open to discourse. You excitedly show them the facts thinking that you can finally convey the info.-- but it's always like Randi and the MDC challengers.

And you spend a lot of time really giving good information, skepticgirl. But they never thank you. They only listen for a weakness they can make a fuss about so that the discussion becomes about this non-issue rather than actual dialogue. But it's kind of interesting to watch them dodge and weave and deny and obfuscate. The more you try to clarify and pin down the goal of the dialogue and find areas of agreement, the more crazy they throw at you.

I always try to say "what evidence will convince you"--they seldom give a direct answer, but if they did, I could then say, "so if I show you xyz, then you will give credence to the notion that..."

Sometimes I ask them how they imagine the world would be different if they were wrong... if evolution was the truth...how do they imagine they would come to know that truth-- but I've never gotten an answer so far. They can't even ponder the possibility I guess.

I try to give simple examples of evidence they could show me to convince me their argument had merit...but they never proffer anything . Their whole argument is finding errors with my argument. They are the proverbial defense attorney with a guilty client.

I want to tell people, don't take my word for it--learn a little science and you can understand the evidence for yourself.