Should scientists debate creationists?

[articulett]

Hmmm. Back in the sixties, when I was a kid, I had a science teacher who told us flat out she didn't believe in evolution but was was going to have to teach us about it because it was required by law. So we got one quick summarization followed by her telling us her personal attitude was that when science showed that apes possessed a soul then she would believe that man evolved from apes.

Contrast that with the recent trial in Dover.

I think it's safe to say that things have changed a bit. Sometimes, you forget what things used to be like.

I think that was wrong and abusive and hasn't served you well. It's nice to see you advocate that sort of misinformation on a mass scale via public funding of creationist "education". Just because you think you turned out fine doesn't really mean that anyone should encourage this misinformation for supposed "higher reasons". Ignorance begets more ignorance.

 

[Meadmaker]

I htink that rationalists should debate evolution.

That is, of course, a good point. Sometimes scientists are the worst spokesmen for science.

 

[articulett]

That is, of course, a good point. Sometimes scientists are the worst spokesmen for science.

Is there any evidence that non-scientists can convey the concepts better? I think creationists aim to obfuscate... and it's hard for anyone to fix... scientist or not. I think a lot of people think they know the way to inform even though they have problems conveying the basics of evolution themselves. I think you are one of those people who think you understand evolution, but cannot convey the simplicity of natural selection because you have a vested interest in describing the entire process of evolution as random.

Scientists, at least, know why that doesn't work... why that is part of the wedge strategy... and the best definitions for avoiding the most common straw man. Still, I've never seen a creationist male over 40 change his mind the slightest on the issue, and I'm not sure they can. I've seen young people and women of all ages able to learn the basics so long as they get a basic grasp on natural selection... even people who were creationists in the past. Such people as Michael Shermer and Newlyfound (on this forum) credit Dawkins' for their understanding. I think if anyone can convey the concept to others-- he is the best by far. But he has written extensively... and there is information all over the web. Facts aren't debatable. And anyone curious enough to know the facts has much information readily accessible in every Natural History museum, biology text, Talk Origins, Dawkins' writings, etc.

Creationists think they know things they do not know and their goal is to obfuscate understanding. And those critiquing scientists as being poor spokespeople are often very poor spokespeople themselves. Dawkins has won an award for conveying the understanding of science to the public. I'm not sure any critics of scientists have.

 

[jimbob]

My point isn't that non-scientists can denbate the point better, but biologists could be victims of corollory of the gish-gallop... (new phrase for me).

Behe knows far more about molecular biology than I do, and possibly more than Dawkins. He would just try to move a verbal debate onto that area, where he would be able to make assertions without much fear of contrediction (in print, research can play a part, and this won't happen).

Debating with a non-biologist, this tactic looks really bad.

Biologists should debvate in print, and provide detailled refutations there. In verbal debates it should be non-biologists, which won't make the creationist's CV look any better.

 

[articulett]

My point isn't that non-scientists can denbate the point better, but biologists could be victims of corollory of the gish-gallop... (new phrase for me).

Behe knows far more about molecular biology than I do, and possibly more than Dawkins. He would just try to move a verbal debate onto that area, where he would be able to make assertions without much fear of contrediction (in print, research can play a part, and this won't happen).

Debating with a non-biologist, this tactic looks really bad.

Biologists should debvate in print, and provide detailled refutations there. In verbal debates it should be non-biologists, which won't make the creationist's CV look any better.

I see... kind of like when Rational Response Squad debated Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. If we don't debate them, they pretend we are afraid to debate.
But the way they talk in circles and ask unanswerable misleading questions and proffer simplistic sound bite explanations makes me wonder if anyone should entertain their silliness at all?

They are dishonest... but religions are dishonest... people are used to having excuses made for their god. I wonder if astronomers debated flat earthers in days of yore...

I would like people to learn the facts before all the obfuscators get to them.
Or have them watch Cosmos or something and tell how their theory differs and how. I just don't know of anyone who has learned anything or been swayed by a debate. I think Dover was great... but Behe lies about it and makes it look like a much different scenario than the transcripts indicate.

Does anyone know of anyone else where a debate made a difference. I like them for students, because it helps them learn more science in shoring up their viewpoints... but I would hate to give the impression that the issue hasn't been settled. It has. We've moved on. Creationist pretend it hasn't and make a lot of noise with an occasional ad hom and tangent thrown it to confuse.

 

[articulett]

Discover Magazine on Behe's book:

Has anyone seen a positive review of Behe's book from a science source? Discover Magazine joins the ranks of those that find it awful:

As unpersuasive as Behe's ideas are scientifically, they are even less convincing philosophically. Behe professes agnosticism on whether the designer was a dope, a demon, or a deity, although he seems peculiarly inclined toward the second possibility. His is a strangely impoverished worldview, one that leaves little space for awe, much less for future scientific advance; he never even raises the obvious question of who the designer is and how it works. Contrast this with Darwin's starry-eyed summation in Origin of Species: "There is grandeur in this view of life . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

That's pretty much my opinion, too. It's a bizarre exercise in bogus math and bad biology to arrive at a sterile conclusion, with no reasonable future scientific efforts proposed.



From pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/behe_gets_another_thumbsdown.php

How can you debate people if you can't make sense out of the gobbledy gook they're saying?

 

[articulett]

My point isn't that non-scientists can denbate the point better, but biologists could be victims of corollory of the gish-gallop... (new phrase for me).

Behe knows far more about molecular biology than I do, and possibly more than Dawkins. He would just try to move a verbal debate onto that area, where he would be able to make assertions without much fear of contrediction (in print, research can play a part, and this won't happen).

Debating with a non-biologist, this tactic looks really bad.

Biologists should debvate in print, and provide detailled refutations there. In verbal debates it should be non-biologists, which won't make the creationist's CV look any better.

I see... kind of like when Rational Response Squad debated Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. If we don't debate them, they pretend we are afraid to debate.
But the way they talk in circles and ask unanswerable misleading questions and proffer simplistic sound bite explanations makes me wonder if anyone should entertain their silliness at all?

They are dishonest... but religions are dishonest... people are used to having excuses made for their god. I wonder if astronomers debated flat earthers in days of yore...

I would like people to learn the facts before all the obfuscators get to them.
Or have them watch Cosmos or something and tell how their theory differs and how. I just don't know of anyone who has learned anything or been swayed by a debate. I think Dover was great... but Behe lies about it and makes it look like a much different scenario than the transcripts indicate.

Does anyone know of anyone else where a debate made a difference. I like them for students, because it helps them learn more science in shoring up their viewpoints... but I would hate to give the impression that the issue hasn't been settled. It has. We've moved on. Creationist pretend it hasn't and make a lot of noise with an occasional ad hom and tangent thrown it to confuse.

 

[Beth]

I'm late returning to the thread, and a lazy Australian. What are 'school vouchers'?

School vouchers are a funding option that provides parents with a 'voucher' for educating their child. They can send their child to a private school of their choice rather than sending him to local public school.

Early, you seemed to be advocating for government supports for schools where the teachers don't have to mention evolution at all, and can just whip out their Bibles instead. So, are you in support of a world that goes backwards even further than when you were a kid?

You misunderstand me. I'm for individualization of education for all children and allowing parents more options to influence and direct their children's education as they feel best.

 

[JoeEllison]

You misunderstand me. I'm for individualization of education for all children and allowing parents more options to influence and direct their children's education as they feel best.

I don't think I misunderstand you at all. I think you are avoiding the logical outcome of the stance you've taken on this issue. School vouchers are a fraud, and so is the idea of "school choice". You're saying that public money should be funneled into private schools, where some parents can make sure their children don't learn anything like evolution.

 

[pgwenthold]

School vouchers are a funding option that provides parents with a 'voucher' for educating their child. They can send their child to a private school of their choice rather than sending him to local public school.

You misunderstand me. I'm for individualization of education for all children and allowing parents more options to influence and direct their children's education as they feel best.

I know you said you didn't want this debate, but I have to say, this bugs the heck out of me.

The taxes we pay that go toward public eduction are not for someone to "educate their child." That can be shown very clearly. First, notice that the amount you pay is NOT dictated by the number of children you have. Whether you have one child or seven matters not, it does not affect the amount of taxes you have to pay for public eduction.

Second (and in the same theme), it doesn't even matter if you have children at all! I pay a lot of taxes that go for public education, yet I don't have any children. Thus, I am paying to help educate other people's children. Now, I don't have a problem with that. I am most willing to pay to help educate our society, but I'll be danged if my money is to go to send selected kids to religious schools.

The mistake that is made here is in thinking that parents' contributions to public education go to educating "their child." It doesn't. It goes to pay for educating all our children, and everyone contributes to that (even the childless).

I will not support vouchers until public education is funded on a per-student basis (which, of course, isn't public education anymore).

Of course, you don't need vouchers to direct a child's education. You just have to pay for it. And the counter that "my child is not in public schools therefore I shouldn't have to pay to support them" doesn't work, because the childless are still responsible.

 

[Beth]

I don't think I misunderstand you at all. I think you are avoiding the logical outcome of the stance you've taken on this issue. School vouchers are a fraud, and so is the idea of "school choice". You're saying that public money should be funneled into private schools, where some parents can make sure their children don't learn anything like evolution.

I don't want to get into a political discussion of vouchers here. It's not the right forum and I've spent enough time in the past discussing it that it's no longer of much interest to me, sorry. I'll try to give a more complete picture of my stance. If you disagree that's okay. We just disagree.

I'm not avoiding the "logical outcome" you are claiming, I just think you're wrong about it. Creationist parents don't want to avoid teaching their children about evolution at all. They realize they must address it because it is prevalent in our society and children will ask about dinosaurs and such. What they want to do is teach their children about evolution in a way that doesn't undermine their religious faith.

It's reasonable for the state to set up a core curriculum that must be covered by all schools receiving public funds via vouchers and it's reasonable for that core curriculum to include evolution. It's also reasonable to have graduation exams that include the theory of evolution. But it is NOT reasonable to require belief in evolution rather than just knowledge about it. So, as long as their chosen schools teach evolution sufficiently well that their students get the basic idea of it, I think that is all that can be reasonably required.

 

[Beth]

Of course, you don't need vouchers to direct a child's education. You just have to pay for it. And the counter that "my child is not in public schools therefore I shouldn't have to pay to support them" doesn't work, because the childless are still responsible.

I understand your argument and it is an effective counter to certain arguments for vouchers. However, my support for vouchers doesn't rest on those arguments so it isn't, for me, an effective argument against them.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't want to get into a political discussion of vouchers here. It's not the right forum and I've spent enough time in the past discussing it that it's no longer of much interest to me, sorry. I'll try to give a more complete picture of my stance. If you disagree that's okay. We just disagree.

I'm not avoiding the "logical outcome" you are claiming, I just think you're wrong about it. Creationist parents don't want to avoid teaching their children about evolution at all. They realize they must address it because it is prevalent in our society and children will ask about dinosaurs and such. What they want to do is teach their children about evolution in a way that doesn't undermine their religious faith.

It's reasonable for the state to set up a core curriculum that must be covered by all schools receiving public funds via vouchers and it's reasonable for that core curriculum to include evolution. It's also reasonable to have graduation exams that include the theory of evolution. But it is NOT reasonable to require belief in evolution rather than just knowledge about it. So, as long as their chosen schools teach evolution sufficiently well that their students get the basic idea of it, I think that is all that can be reasonably required.

No school requires belief in evolution (whatever the heck "belief in evolution" means). Schools teach it and test on it. Most schools don't really teach it, though. You think your example of a teacher who did not "believe in evolution" was unique to the past. Well it isn't. My 16 year old, in public school, has had two teachers specifically state that evolution is wrong. One was her junior high science teacher and the other was her chemistry teacher from last year. Even the teachers who accept the science don't really teach it. A typical "evolution block" consists of a single brief lecture in my neck of the woods.

Public education in the U.S. exists for the purpose of creating good citizens. Parents are competent to decide that they want their children educated in a private school. If so, it is their responsibility to pay for it. What constitutes public education is decided by the public.

School vouchers are a sham.

 

[Meadmaker]

A typical "evolution block" consists of a single brief lecture in my neck of the woods.

And that's the problem. Science teachers and administrators, have pretty much decided to avoid the creation/evolution debate, too. The consequence is that they pretty much avoid the issue entirely, by providing inadequate teaching on evolution.

 

[Beth]

No school requires belief in evolution (whatever the heck "belief in evolution" means). Schools teach it and test on it.

Right. So a school that taught evolution and tested students on it, but taught it as 'what scientists believe' and taught their own beliefs alongside it would be perfectly okay, as long as they weren't imposing those beliefs on the children of people who hold different beliefs .

Most schools don't really teach it, though. You think your example of a teacher who did not "believe in evolution" was unique to the past. Well it isn't. My 16 year old, in public school, has had two teachers specifically state that evolution is wrong. One was her junior high science teacher and the other was her chemistry teacher from last year. Even the teachers who accept the science don't really teach it. A typical "evolution block" consists of a single brief lecture in my neck of the woods.

Right. As Meadmaker pointed out, the result of all the societal conflict about whether or not it should be taught to our children has resulted in an education that barely mentions it all in an effort to reduce conflict and confrontation about it.

Public education in the U.S. exists for the purpose of creating good citizens.

I'm in total agreement with you here.

Parents are competent to decide that they want their children educated in a private school. If so, it is their responsibility to pay for it. What constitutes public education is decided by the public.

In my state, the public is continually see-sawing back and forth about this particular issue. The result - a waste of funding and resources that could be put to better use, inconsistent public policy that changes every time there is an election. Finally, we have ineffective science teaching because teachers avoid mentioning the 'E' word at all costs due to the very real problems they are likely to encounter as a result.

School vouchers are a sham.

We disagree. I think vouchers are a step in the right direction and will lead to improvement of our public education system for all children. You probably don't agree. That's okay. It's just my opinion. When I see evidence that vouchers result in a degradation of education in general, I'll change my mind about them.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Right. So a school that taught evolution and tested students on it, but taught it as 'what scientists believe' and taught their own beliefs alongside it would be perfectly okay, as long as they weren't imposing those beliefs on the children of people who hold different beliefs .

If you refer to teaching beliefs in creationism in science class, then, no I do not think that is perfectly ok. Creationism is not science. It does not belong in science. To teach it alongside evolution in a science curriculum sends precisely the wrong message. Science classes in high school do not even broach (or at the most barely broach) the issue of origins, so I don't see where the problem of "teaching origins" even arises. Teaching natural selection in science is appropriate. We see the process everywhere, abundantly. It makes no claim on the issue of origins. That is an issue concerning pure materialism as a philosophical stance. That natural selection allows materialism to be a logical position regarding the question of origins is beside the point.

Right. As Meadmaker pointed out, the result of all the societal conflict about whether or not it should be taught to our children has resulted in an education that barely mentions it all in an effort to reduce conflict and confrontation about it.

Yes, that is an unfortunate consequence, that was my point above. This is a consequence, though, of the political power of the religious right. That is why people on this forum get all up in arms over this issue. They (the religious right) are winning simply by shouting the loudest even though there is nothing to back the position -- that evolution is wrong and/or evil in some way.

ETA

As an addendum, if you mean by the above that both stances could be taught in school in a non-science class, then I am all for it. I think philosophy should be introduced in junior or senior high school in the U.S. This debate is not scientific. It is philosophical. The debate should be placed in its proper context. It is essentially a debate between materialism and idealism.

 

[Beth]

Yes, that is an unfortunate consequence, that was my point above. This is a consequence, though, of the political power of the religious right.

That's correct, the religious right have gained political power by getting people to vote their candidates into office and then getting those candidates to institute change from within. This is not only perfectly legal, it is the proper course of action for any group wishing to change the status quo. They have been quite successful, at least in my state, particularly in regards to elections of members of the state school board.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's correct, the religious right have gained political power by getting people to vote their candidates into office and then getting those candidates to institute change from within. This is not only perfectly legal, it is the proper course of action for any group wishing to change the status quo. They have been quite successful, at least in my state, particularly in regards to elections of members of the state school board.

That is not the source of this problem. Very few school boards are headed by creationists. When they are, the situation generally comes to a head quickly, as in Dover. The same thing basically happened in Ohio but the curriculum committe for the state was voted down.

This issue concerns teachers approaching the material in class and not feeling comfortable with it or letting their religious convictions overshadow what they should be teaching. There are clear guidelines in most states about how this material should be approached. From what I can see the teachers in some situations are not following those guidelines for a variety of reasons.

 

[Beth]

That is not the source of this problem. Very few school boards are headed by creationists. When they are, the situation generally comes to a head quickly, as in Dover. The same thing basically happened in Ohio but the curriculum committe for the state was voted down.

This issue concerns teachers approaching the material in class and not feeling comfortable with it or letting their religious convictions overshadow what they should be teaching. There are clear guidelines in most states about how this material should be approached. From what I can see the teachers in some situations are not following those guidelines for a variety of reasons.

I'm sorry, but we've discussed a number of issues. At this point, I'm not clear on how you think this issue (teachers approach to evolution in public school classrooms) relates to vouchers, what you feel the source of the problem is, or how you feel it should be handled.

 

[Dymanic]

Creationist parents don't want to avoid teaching their children about evolution at all.

I doubt if very many creationists are crazy enough to think that given the current political climate they'll ever see their viewpoint come to dominate science curricula in public schools -- but where their own children are concerned, it's a different matter. If you really think there aren't a great many creationists who are more than willing to make every effort to "protect" their children as long as they can by preventing them from being exposed to such teachings, then all I can say is you must not have actually met very creationists.

What they want to do is teach their children about evolution in a way that doesn't undermine their religious faith.

See, there's the rub; the only way to accomplish that goal is by either altering facts or ommitting them altogether, because modifying their faith is not an option. This inflexibility is practically the definition of "fundamentalist".

What I think we see is a willingness on the part of creationists to compromise; the whole: "Hey, we just want equal time" thing -- but this should not be mistaken for a tolerant attitude towards opposing viewpoints; it's a political strategy. Make no mistake: they most certainly do want evolutionary theory eliminated from science curricula. If they can get creationism (they'll settle for "ID" for starters) taught alongside evolution, that's a foot in the door.

I just don't think they have a snowball's chance of pulling it off. I'd even go so far as to say that the "Creationists are taking over!" bit has the flavor of a witch hunt (if you can stand that much irony).

They have been quite successful, at least in my state, particularly in regards to elections of members of the state school board.

And how successful have they been in making changes to the actual curriculum?

Creationism is not science. It does not belong in science. To teach it alongside evolution in a science curriculum sends precisely the wrong message.

And scientists publicly debating creationists sends the same message.

Science classes in high school do not even broach (or at the most barely broach) the issue of origins, so I don't see where the problem of "teaching origins" even arises.

Indeed, evolutionary theory itself does not address the issue of "origins" in the sense of abiogenesis.