Should scientists debate creationists?

[JayT]

Creation Science - The Ultimate Oxymoron

To me, the issue rests on this one fact: creationists have no new viewpoints worthy of debate. "Intelligent design" advocates are simply creationists who lack the basic integrity and honest to admit their creationist position.

So, why would anyone debate them, when there is nothing there to debate? It would be like debating with someone who believes the earth is flat: since one side is so very obviously wrong, there's no purpose in discussing a non-issue.

I agree in principle.

However, the issue of whether the earth is flat or not is far more clearly resolved than the nebulous non-issues that Creationists invent as smoke screens to confuse the public. This is evidenced by the still too large percentage of the public who continue to support Creationist views and favour religion in the science class and the millions of $$$ they raised to open a museum depicting dinosaurs frolicking in the Garden of Eden with kids.

I almost find myself hoping they unearth a dinosaur fossil with a couple of fossil kids in his belly. Then I'll believe.

LOL



You think the Creationists are bad ?

The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.

Yousef M. Ibrahim, "Muslim Edicts take on New Force"
The New York Times, February 12, 1995, p. A-14.

Oy gevalt!

And the plot thickens.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Evolution is most certainly testable - moreover, it has been tested and has thus far stood up to scrutiny. It is also falsifiable: I can't remember who it was who said it (might have been Gould?), but when asked what it would take to shake his belief in evolution, he replied, "Rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian."

Creation, I suppose, could be tested. All it would require is for God to come down to Earth and create some living creatures for scientists in a series of experiments. I doubt it would be that hard for him - he is omnipotent and omnipresent, right? Right?

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?

There is no refusal to debate. In science the debate takes a different format, however - public debates are less than useless when debating a theory or hypothesis, because public debates are not about finding the truth, they are about entertainment.

That is why scientists conduct research, and then attempt to get their papers published by scientific journals. By providing all the information to other people, it allows people to check for flaws and to replicate the results, thus confirming or denying the accuracy of the paper. Of course, it isn't quite as simple as ticking some boxes and the paper is correct - that is why scientists disagree with eachother on some issues - but the debates take place within a well controlled environment, and not on a stage.

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.

Cooler heads and common sense didn't get rid of blood letting and the belief that flies come from rotting meat, in fact common sense told us that blood letting worked and that flies did come from rotting meat. It was science that eventually led us to understand otherwise, not common sense.

 

[Questioninggeller]

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.

I suspect you are a troll, but if not:

The point of OP was that there is no evidence for creation. Evolution is a fact, like the Universal Theory of Gravity. Hence, there is nothing to "debate" in an intellectual sense.

The question is: should scientists engage in trying to educate people via a debate with someone who represents a fringe idea, and usually lacks knowledge of what science is.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Evolution is a fact, like the Universal Theory of Gravity.

And unlike gravity, we actually understand the mechanism behind evolution by natural selection.

 

[Mobyseven]

By the way, I voted 'other'. If creationists wish to do actual research, and go through the proper channels for debate (i.e. Peer reviewed literature) then sure, debate them! The science will stand up on its own.

But the grandstanding public debates that creationists request? Forget it. That ain't science.

 

[PixyMisa]

Evolution is most certainly testable - moreover, it has been tested and has thus far stood up to scrutiny. It is also falsifiable: I can't remember who it was who said it (might have been Gould?), but when asked what it would take to shake his belief in evolution, he replied, "Rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian."

J. B. S. Haldane.

 

[articulett]

No...the longer you seep your brain in faith, the less capable you are of reasoning. I mean, if you really believe your salvation depends on believing an unbelievable story then no amount of evidence in the world will change your mind. I am just appalled at the ignorance of creationists in light of the reams of molecular DNA evidence--Darwin never even saw a chromosome.

They are too stupid to give any credibility too (though when they drop by a skeptics forum to put their arrogance and ignorance on display then I'm all for using them for entertainment purposes.--Just so long as nobody ever thinks a miracle will happen. I've never seen a creationist get a clue. They are impervious.

They do spawn a lot...but they will die out. They're anachronistic in most civilized societies. Do they read newspapers...do they they think all the other countries, and forensic laboratories and the Smithsonian and National Geographic and Scientific American etc. are all part of the "conspiracy" to keep out the really true truth. (As if science wouldn't be the first to hone any relevant information if they every had an iota of anything to offer.)

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

I think ridicule will get rid of these modern flat earthers better than anything. Science just keeps plodding along amassing more data...(but we will need their ignorant spawn to pump our gas for us and serve our french fries.)

 

[The Great Hairy One]

I will name you one of them. Dr Michael Behe. Probably the worlds foremost expert in microbiology. Don't know of any more famous than him.

I just want to point out that Dr Behe is a biochemist, not a microbiologist. A world of difference there. And as a biochemist, he's a failure. He's had two publications in the past 8 years, and neither of those were particularly stimulating or world-defining. Biochemists more famous than Behe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biochemists

Back on topic, I don't see the point in a scientist debating a creationist, unless it is a written debate. In a verbal debate the creationist tends to do the "Gish gallop" where they bring up every topic under the sun in the space of five minutes. This usually means that the scientist is simply overwhelmed with the sheer volume of stupid arguments, and they have to try to correct the very basic errors the creationists say and they can't put forward any of their own points. This makes it appear that the scientist can't answer the creationist, when in fact they're standing there thinking "ZOMG, did he just say that evolution was responsible for stellar masses?" and the like.

Written debates, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. Having debated both Ham and Behe in written form, I can state that it's very easy to absolutely shred the creationist. And it's a lot of fun.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Scientist should debate creationists.

You cannot ask people to take up an evidence based world view and expect them to believe in evolution without providing evidence.

 

[Par]

Scientist should debate creationists.

You cannot ask people to take up an evidence based world view and expect them to believe in evolution without providing evidence.

Well, you seem to have conflated “debating creationists” with “providing evidence for evolution.” However, there is a very real distinction between the two.

 

[Par]

Double

 

[Par]

You think the Creationists are bad ?



Oy gevalt! And the plot thickens.

I’ve heard he might have not actually said that. What he did say was only marginally less ridiculous though.

 

[PixyMisa]

Scientists should debate creationists.

However, if the creationist brings up "evolution within kind" or the second law of thermodynamics, the scientist gets to punch him in the face.

 

[JoeEllison]

Scientists should debate creationists.

However, if the creationist brings up "evolution within kind" or the second law of thermodynamics, the scientist gets to punch him in the face.

Sounds fair to me. Do we get to slide bamboo slivers under their fingernails if they claim that Darwin recanted on his deathbed? Can we cut off a finger for each misquotation or quote misleadingly taken out of context?

 

[rittjc]

Originally Posted by strathmeyer


rittjc replies:


Michael Shermer:


A virtual microcosm of the OP's point.

Better said, a self-revealing hypocrisy.

Also, claiming one has nothing to hide so he has nothing to prove is about as exposing of the confidence (or lack thereof) that secularists have in their positions of "the magic of unseen evolution". The fear of being exposed as a con artists is what has secularists so emotionally outrage at the idea of an objective view of their self-proclaimed "established facts".

The most common word used by evolutionists in describing their "claims" is the word creation. They refer to nature as creation and to complexity as design. But yet, if you are not an atheist, your claims to point this hypocrisy out are met not with intellectual confidence but vociferous angst at the thought of showing both sides.

I can't believe Atheist evolutionists are so blind to their own transparency. Or then again, that is the point. Maybe they are not.

If a man is confident in something he is willing to have it scrutinized. If he believes it vulnerable to others, he will oppose this objective scrutiny with intense emotions like those posted here. This screams the need to check the facts with science and that the "judge" (the public) SHOULD hear both sides of the case for it to be considered an establishment of fact.

No court anywhere would accept a verdict where only one side of the trial is presented. So why should the public give any credence whatsoever to "claims" of evolution? Atheist Evolutionists are very Stalinist in their beliefs.

Absolutely let them debate. Or better said present both arguments in schools and let the individuals decide for themselves rather than indoctrinating them with one or the other. You wouldn't accept it if the shoe was on the other foot. Why should an IDer or creationist?

That's plain intellectual dishonesty. Such ignorance should not be the rule amongst man. The Atheist Evolutionist loves this as did the middle age churches when they rammed their beliefs down the throats of people without objective scrutiny. Atheist Evolutionist have become the very epitome of what they claim to hate.

Now that's irony friends.

 

[rittjc]

I just want to point out that Dr Behe is a biochemist, not a microbiologist. A world of difference there. And as a biochemist, he's a failure. He's had two publications in the past 8 years, and neither of those were particularly stimulating or world-defining. Biochemists more famous than Behe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biochemists

Back on topic, I don't see the point in a scientist debating a creationist, unless it is a written debate. In a verbal debate the creationist tends to do the "Gish gallop" where they bring up every topic under the sun in the space of five minutes. This usually means that the scientist is simply overwhelmed with the sheer volume of stupid arguments, and they have to try to correct the very basic errors the creationists say and they can't put forward any of their own points. This makes it appear that the scientist can't answer the creationist, when in fact they're standing there thinking "ZOMG, did he just say that evolution was responsible for stellar masses?" and the like.

Written debates, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. Having debated both Ham and Behe in written form, I can state that it's very easy to absolutely shred the creationist. And it's a lot of fun.

Cheers,
TGHO

You say Behe is a failure? Did you prove that irreducible complexity can be reduced? You are an emotional evolution zealot. Not a scientist. Degrees mean nothing if objectivity is lacking. You might as well have a degree in Philosophy or Theology. Neither of them help you or hurt you if you are blindly biased.

You didn't refute Behe. You were the ones that claimed that the inside of the cell was "goop" until recent times when microbiology has exposed them full of machines of all shorts from motors, conveyor systems, exhaust systems, and most intriguing of all, replication systems.


You haven't shredded anything except your credibility as someone objective and unbiased. You are another sheep of the field. A stamped out trained parrot that does nothing but spit out talking points but no rational or logical counter argument that tends to dispute those made by the other side using science.

You basis of fact is your preconceived conclusion that no one is allowed to challenge as it is a self-proclaimed "absolute fact".

No one violates the scientific process more so than an evolutionist. No one.

But then again, what does scientific process have to do with Evolution?

 

[rittjc]

Scientists should debate creationists.

However, if the creationist brings up "evolution within kind" or the second law of thermodynamics, the scientist gets to punch him in the face.

Yes, there should be debate as long as the creationists don't bring up anything I can't refute.

Evolution has "kinds", the simply rename them "orders" so they can't be correlated to Genesis.

Evolution, a belief of convenience. I believe it so therefore it is true.

Do you people ever really think about what you say? Ever?

 

[joobz]

I just want to point out that Dr Behe is a biochemist, not a microbiologist. A world of difference there. And as a biochemist, he's a failure. He's had two publications in the past 8 years, and neither of those were particularly stimulating or world-defining. Biochemists more famous than Behe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biochemists

Back on topic, I don't see the point in a scientist debating a creationist, unless it is a written debate. In a verbal debate the creationist tends to do the "Gish gallop" where they bring up every topic under the sun in the space of five minutes. This usually means that the scientist is simply overwhelmed with the sheer volume of stupid arguments, and they have to try to correct the very basic errors the creationists say and they can't put forward any of their own points. This makes it appear that the scientist can't answer the creationist, when in fact they're standing there thinking "ZOMG, did he just say that evolution was responsible for stellar masses?" and the like.

Written debates, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. Having debated both Ham and Behe in written form, I can state that it's very easy to absolutely shred the creationist. And it's a lot of fun.

Cheers,
TGHO

The problem with written debates is that the people who NEED to see them the most, don't read very much.

Now, what I see would work is a reality TV episode with 5 Iders and 5 "evolutionists" living in a house.
Each week offer up challenges to test the validity of either's view

Example Challenges include:
1.) Design an experiment to test evolution/ID
2.) Prove/Disprove irreducible Complexity
3.) Prove/disprove speciation through natural selection
4.) Dance Competition
5.) Host a Pray off


Really, the show would be over by the end of the first challenge.

 

[qayak]

If a man is confident in something he is willing to have it scrutinized.

Then why doesn't Behe submit a paper on the subject to a peer reviewed publication? He publishes popular books for the consumption of an ignorant general public.

If he believes it vulnerable to others, he will oppose this objective scrutiny with intense emotions like those posted here. This screams the need to check the facts with science and that the "judge" (the public) SHOULD hear both sides of the case for it to be considered an establishment of fact.

You are evidence of what happens when the public is allowed to judge the facts. If you want to hear another point of view, that is fine but you automatically assume that both have equal standing.

Scientists come down on the side of evolution because the evidence is completely overwhelming. You come down on the side of creationism because you are too lazy to sort through Behe's BS.

No court anywhere would accept a verdict where only one side of the trial is presented.

No but they throw BS evidence out and once it is established to be BS it isn't allowed back in. Creationism was BS when it came out many, many years ago and it is still BS,even when a scientist is willing to shipwreck his career on it.

 

[joobz]

You say Behe is a failure? Did you prove that irreducible complexity can be reduced?

yes, this has proven.

No one violates the scientific process more so than an evolutionist. No one.

absolute statements, eh? Ok, provide a testable hypothesis for intelligent design. One testable hypothesis. Just one. That is all I ask.