Should scientists debate creationists?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Any good science the Behe may have done had absolutely nothing to do with creationism / ID. In that field, he has not done good science. In that field, nobody has done good science.

True. But the statement that I was objecting to was that Behe was no more of a scientist than Dr Seuss. Like it or not, Behe is some kind of scientist. He's even a scientist in a field relevant to evolution.

 

[Segnosaur]

Why are people unwilling to debate creationists live and in public, but willing to debate them in public in this forum? What's the difference? If you''ll debate them here I hope you'd say the same things to their faces with people watching.

Probably because your average creationist is arguing from a position of ignorance, and likes it that way.

A creationist will gladly repeat an argument they hear from some creationist source, even if they don't understand the 'science' (or lack of science) behind it. Don't understand physics? Doesn't matter... you heard the "second law of thermodynamics" disproves evolution, so just repeat word-for-word what you heard. Don't understand biology? Doesn't matter... just repeat "Irreducable complexity in the flagellum" word-for-word.

Someone who accepts in evolution may not necessarily know all the answers (at least from memory). And its quite possible for some creationist to come up with some (faulty) science which they think proves their point that the evolutionist had never seen (especially when its something outside their field of expertise). Rather than get blindsided by false claims, its better to stick to a forum where you can research things and present rational answers, or in some cases defer to experts in the field.

 

[The Atheist]

Probably because your average creationist is arguing from a position of ignorance, and likes it that way.

Yeah, that's a given and rittjc is proving it every step - he's a troll.

Anyway, something of infinitely more interest caught my eye - the quotes you have from Undercover Elephant in your sig. I'm assuming they're right, but UE is board admin at Dawkins' forum.

If you can give me some links, I'd quite like to take it up on that forum - those comments are outrageous.

 

[Caius Textor]

It is a long known result that whenever you take false premises in a logical reasoning, anything can come out as the result, or conclusion.

That is the case with people that get their scientific knowledge out of bad high-school books (and bad teachers) and TV shows. They take the over-simplistic "explanations" and exposures of scientific concepts at face value, consider them to be "cutitng edge science" and, without further inquiry, try to see the holes and problems with those ideas.

These people have false notions. Whatever their reasoning is, it can take them anywhere. They might scratch at some real problem (which would be cristal clear if a real study was undertaken) but, more often than not, they will just utter completely useless statements, false conclusions and ridiculous assertions.

Our world today is complicated enought without the nuisances of these types. There is more than enought serious, competent readings to be done to fill in 3 lifespans. We shouldn´t waste our time considering every single false doctrine under the sun.

Science shouldn´t be discussed with those that are ignorant of it an yet try to criticise it. Just like careless scientists, these people will eventually fall into oblivion. Let us not hamper their way there.

 

[andyandy]

Yeah, that's a given and rittjc is proving it every step - he's a troll.

Anyway, something of infinitely more interest caught my eye - the quotes you have from Undercover Elephant in your sig. I'm assuming they're right, but UE is board admin at Dawkins' forum.

If you can give me some links, I'd quite like to take it up on that forum - those comments are outrageous.

there is no escape from google....

And there is the hypocrisy. As Bin Laden said in his statement : America wants a monopoly on security. America wants security for America, at the expense of security for anyone else. Sorry, but no can do. If America wants a monopoly on security it makes itself into a valid target for everybody else. It is because of people like YOU that America got kicked in the balls on 9/11. People like YOU make America into a target. People like YOU invite another 9/11. Your attitude forces everybody else to defend themselves from American tyranny. If you think that alienating the whole world improves US security then you need another 9/11 to remind you that it does not.

I know you don't understand this, but you are currently talking to a person who has been driven to supporting Al-Qaeda because he is sick to death of Americans behaving like they own this planet and have a right to prosper at the expense of everybody else. I cheer Bin Laden, and it is not because of the genuinely democratic, progressive, liberal citizens of America. It is purely because of people like you.

 

[JoeEllison]

It seems absurd to write such a book and then refuse to engage within the very debate that motivates it and has become so central to it.

I think the point is similar to the idea that the best place for Tiger Woods to display his skills in golf is by accepting challengers at the local Putt-Putt... and giving them unlimited mulligans. The difference in quality and type of discussion between a researched, end-noted book and a live debate with a Creationist who will most likely be lying throughout... why bother?

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Right, only evolution became an accepted scientific theory before the internet was invented. It was able to do so because of a preponderance of evidence, and there is more evidence now than ever. This "Gish Gallop" thing can't be some unassailable debate tactic. Somebody can come up with a coutertactic(I suspect somebody has, as his tactic is not only applicable as an attack on this one scientific theory, so I'm sure it's been used and rebuffed before).

Yes many people are arguing from a position of willful ignorance, but those considering pursuing an evidence based decision process must be provided that evidence. If someone who believes in Creationism based on some abstract entity called "God" is then convinced of evolution because of the abstract entity of "Science", not much has changed. "Scientists say so" shouldn't be considered any more convincing than "Ye Almighty Ol' Tome says so". Real evidence must be presented and evaluated. Otherwise science "converts" will still be mindless zombies.

 

[FSM]

As to the issue of debating creationists:

I'd like to take a second and thank rittjc for stepping up to the plate in this thread and in the "Free Ride" thread in a forum that is full of "secular scientists" to fight for an important cause-- the god given right of school children to learn about Intelligent Design.

ID encompasses my closely held belief system (http://www.venganza.org/)
that throughout the ages has been proven simply by asking the completely objective and scientifically minded question, "Who was it that created mankind?"

No amount of debate or argument will sway me or rittjc. We are just posting here to prove to you smarty pants sciency types that we are right, you are wrong and if you listen to us yelling belligerently for long enough, we are absolutely certain that you will see things our way.

Maybe we can even save your souls.

We will pray for you.

Ramen.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Conceptually, evolution as an origin is as irrational as looking at my calculator and then my computer, seeing similarities and concluding that the computer was once a calculator that evolved spontaneously and randomly with energy applied without guiding intelligence. If I did this in something so relatively simplistic as electronics, I would be put in a straight jacket and hauled away.

This is an invalid analogy. Computers and calculators, like pocket watches, do not reproduce themselves. They do not share a mechanism for passing design information, with modification, from generation to generation.

 

[Lonewulf]

Rittjc: I blame you for the 30+ minutes I've wasted reading through these threads, seeing absolutely nothing of value. You are obviously a troll (an obvious one), and you've set up nothing but traps.

If a man insults you, you claim that he's a bigot and those damned atheists and evolution boogeymen are out to get you.

If you insult someone that takes offense, well, you don't care. You then repeat the process.

If someone brings up scientific data, you ignore that post and then claim that no one brings up science and "only resorts to personal attacks".

To all of the people that continue to attempt to debate with this man, I only have to say: Both bravo for your time and effort against a veritable brick wall, and numbskulls for continuing to do so even in the face of such an obvious troll that so blatantly ignores any scientific data in his attacks on science.

Bravo.
Numbskulls.

Seriously, there is no point here. Even fence sitters would have gotten bored about 148 posts ago.

 

[John Hewitt]

No amount of debate or argument will sway me or rittjc. We are just posting here to prove to you smarty pants sciency types that we are right, you are wrong and if you listen to us yelling belligerently for long enough, we are absolutely certain that you will see things our way.

<snip>

Ramen.

In other words, you will hold on to your own opinions, regardless of argument or evidence to the contrary. Dawkins, a Professor of the public understanding of science, will not debate with creationism, or with creationists - who represent a large section of the public.

<irony>Could be a fascinating debate.</irony> Perhaps everyone should go home to bed.

 

[my_wan]

rittjc why hath thou denied me the request thou hath requested me!
Post #53
Post #139

Thou hath made perversion of thou words!

 

[The Atheist]

there is no escape from google....

Well, I'm just stunned.

Thanks for that. That person masquerades as a thinking human being.

I think the point is similar to the idea that the best place for Tiger Woods to display his skills in golf is by accepting challengers at the local Putt-Putt... and giving them unlimited mulligans. The difference in quality and type of discussion between a researched, end-noted book and a live debate with a Creationist who will most likely be lying throughout... why bother?

Analogy of the week!

In other words, you will hold on to your own opinions, regardless of argument or evidence to the contrary. Dawkins, a Professor of the public understanding of science, will not debate with creationism, or with creationists - who represent a large section of the public.

<irony>Could be a fascinating debate.</irony> Perhaps everyone should go home to bed.

But nicely pointed out. I guess, on that basis, if Tiger stands up and says, "All you weekend golfers at thirty over suck at golf because...." he would then be under an obligation to go and talk to some weekend golfers.

Accordingly, you're right, but Dawkins' problem is more that his case will be full of scientific gobbledygook, while the other side just sits and spouts BS in plain, everyday [biblical] English. Judged by an Oxford debate standard, you and I both know that Dawkins would win unanimously.

Unfortunately, Mr & Mrs Public won't see it that way and it's something which could do more harm than good. When even the Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution, I think the chances for creationists to debate this subject has long passed. They are but a lunatic fringe of christians even, and definitely beneath the contempt of a Professor of Public Understanding of Science.

To me, it's the same as asking why a Professor of Engineering would want to debate a 9/11 CT nutter who claims no planes hit WTC - the mere acceptance of debate would give credence to the subject, which in neither case, actually exists.

 

[FSM]

Exactly, John.

<irony> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

 

[PixyMisa]

In other words, you will hold on to your own opinions, regardless of argument or evidence to the contrary. Dawkins, a Professor of the public understanding of science, will not debate with creationism, or with creationists - who represent a large section of the public.

Wrong.

We will not engage in public debate, because the creationists are not there to debate the subject, but to put on a show using borrowed credibility.

The debate certainly continues in print. The creationists are just as dishonest there, but easier to catch.

 

[JoeEllison]

In other words, you will hold on to your own opinions, regardless of argument or evidence to the contrary.

Here's a crazy idea: show us your evidence, in print. Then, we'll examine it, and if necessary give a response, also in print.

So, where's your evidence?

 

[andyandy]

I think scientists should debate with creationists. I do not suggest that every scientist should do so but some evolutionary scientists are deeply embedded within the creation/evolution debate - I fail to see how they can avoid it. For example, I find it hard to understand how Dawkins can refuse to take part in this dialogue. His recent book, The God Delusion, is specifically directed to this discourse and is, in many ways, a direct response to the creationism and ID movement. It seems absurd to write such a book and then refuse to engage within the very debate that motivates it and has become so central to it.

have you been paying attention rittjc's thread in RP? There is no clearer illustration of the absolute futility of talking with some people. And in any case there is no debate - we don't still "debate" geocentricity, we dismiss it. Because it's wrong. Absolutists who are convinced that they are right will reject all the reasoned arguments in the world simply because God told them differently.
How many times and in how many ways can scientists keep saying "you're talking bollocks"?

 

[JoeEllison]

How many times and in how many ways can scientists keep saying "you're talking bollocks"?

The creationists would claim that you aren't allowed to say that at all. Every time a new one decides to spew the same old nonsense, they expect to be taken seriously. Why would anyone bother? Hell, why are WE bothering even to the small degree that we are by participating in this thread?

 

[The Atheist]

Here's a crazy idea: show us your evidence, in print. Then, we'll examine it, and if necessary give a response, also in print.

So, where's your evidence?

You may be labouring under the misapprehension that John's an IDiot.

He isn't.

have you been paying attention rittjc's thread in RP?

As that shows, he does have taste.

The creationists would claim that you aren't allowed to say that at all. Every time a new one decides to spew the same old nonsense, they expect to be taken seriously. Why would anyone bother? Hell, why are WE bothering even to the small degree that we are by participating in this thread?

I can claim clean hands on this, I think. I don't believe I've attempted to rationalise with the current fundy trolls at all. In fact I've asked that very question - why bother?

 

[Hokulele]

Well, I still bother as I sometimes learn something in the process. TGHO's posts in the R&P thread are an example of a clear concise way of describing things that I will shamelessly plagiarize cite when talking with reasonable people. I also learned a bit about real Information Theory as part of a derail, and I picked up a new Mornington Crescent strategy. Any day I learn something or a better way to phrase something is a good day.