Should scientists debate creationists?

[articulett]

As Dawkins notes--debating a creationist looks great on their resume...not so great on his own. http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

Should Astronomers debate Astrologers.? No. Facts stay the same no matter who wins debates and creationists are a dishonest, obfuscating, goal-post moving lot. Creationists never bring any evidence to the table in support of whatever creation mechanism they are proffering...their arguments all boil down to, "science can't explain "x" (at least not to their satisfaction); therefore, my alternate unsupported hypothesis must be true."

Making fun of them brings much more pleasure --besides, they show an utter lack of curiosity about new developments in science and are incapable of absorbing facts that put their intelligent designer in doubt.

 

[articulett]

Renowned by whom? Not real scientists and not unless the renown came before they lost their grip on reality.
Renowned by the creationists (and don't bother trying to disguise ID as as seperate thing) maybe. Fools loving fools.

Yes, even Lehigh University where Behe got his science degree has disowned him and made it known that their science department is not as stupid as that particular graduate is.

And real science, in the shape of his own department of biological sciences at Lehigh University, has publicly disowned him, via a remarkable disclaimer on its Web site: "While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1360,Inferior-Design,Richard-Dawkins

 

[articulett]

No, not a secret agenda, an agenda perhaps, but not a secret one. It is fair to say that I don't think that much of Dawkins' science. I certainly don't think it deserves its prominence and in a number of respects its plain wrong - group selection is just one among several examples. Wilson seems to have been shouted down on group selection but it seems increasingly that he was actually right.

Sure, there are both ethical and practical dilemmas arising here and some observational questions too.
The dilemmas - is it reasonable for scientists to use what are, in essence, propaganda techniques - choosing to ignore widely held alternative viewpoints while publicising a single view of their own. (Note that this is directly contrary to the ethic that science claims for itself.) The practical questions are "is it possible to reply to a creationist claim?" "are the personnel available to do so?" and "do scientists have the knowledge and skill needed to communicate meaningful replies at a level that will be accessible to the public?"

More generally, if these propaganda techniques can be applied to creation science, where does that end? Is it also reasonable to apply them within science, to questions that are indisputably scientific questions, like group selection?

No, John, Scientists use the same facts that are available to everyone. Creationists use propaganda techniques. Should any creationist have actual measurable evidence for any alternate theory other than the notion that their "alternative viewpoint" is "widely held" and that science can't explain something or other--then maybe they'd be credible. Creationists do not even agree with each other on very simple things like the age of the earth...they do not keep abreast of current science and, therefore, are hopelessly unprepared in any debate. Their goal is to obfuscate understanding...not to clarify. Calling facts "propaganda" and equating science with "dogma" doesn't make it true.

 

[my_wan]

What about JREF's own, Lee Graham and his irreducible complexity program?

http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/
http://www.randi.org/amazingmeeting/tam5/papers.html

Spore (computer games) uses genetic algorithms too.

Very nice. Thanks, I didn't know about this one.

 

[John Hewitt]

:From Mobyseven
Well, you learn something new every day! I still wouldn't say it's a horrible example, after all the virus is still adapting and changing. But there are certainly FAR better examples to use now that I've been given the basic Influenza 101 talk.

What about antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria? Is that better for an example?

It's not a horrible example at all. Hewitt is a proponent of "intelligent design", although he won't admit it. He'll just answer obliquely. Flu viruses evolve and the vaccine makers try to predict which direction and which strain will be the most virulent.

No, influenza is not a horrid example but it is an unusual example in that it exhibits more or less random mixing of genes when two strains coinfect the same host. Very few viruses do that.
Bacterial resistance is a nicer example of selection, though it won't get you past advocates of ID, they will call it microevolution and we will all get sidetracked onto a discussion of the differences between micro and macro.

For the record, I have no idea why Articulette keeps accusing me of being an advocate of intelligent design. I am an advocate of respect for observational facts and of intelligent thought.

 

[Dymanic]

I think atheist is right about flu not being a good example of evolution. The reason it "mutates" so readily is that influenza virus contains several separate fragments of RNA - more or less one per gene. Thus, if a pathogenic H5 strain appears in Chinese chickens, it can easily get into human flu just by coinfecting with the more normal human and then just jumbling up the fragments - the spread of the pathogenicity into humans really isn't a new mutation.

No, the jumbling you describe (technically referred to as "reassortment") isn't mutation -- no more than is the jumbling of genetic material through sexual reproduction. But in addition to this, mutation in the influenza genome is, of course, constantly occurring as well -- in fact, much faster than in complex organisms, due partly to the very short generation times and partly to a lack of error-correction in the copying process. The price of this much variability is that huge numbers of nascent virions end up being mutated (or reassorted) beyond viability -- but the persistence of influenza stands as evidence that the formula works. Because human generation times are much too slow to permit responding in kind, human immune systems keep pace through a fascinating process called "affinity maturation", wherein the same fundamental rules apply, with natural selection influencing the outcome of competition between descendants of diverse B-cell clones.

As for whether scientists should debate creationists, I think it's pertinent to ask: for the benefit of what audience? If the answer is "the undecided among a scientifically illiterate public", then the scientist will always be at a disadvantage: his arguments have to be expanded and supported, while those of his opponent need merely have a certain intuitive or emotional appeal.

It's easier to throw rocks than it is to catch them.

 

[articulett]

Damn fine post, Dynamic.

 

[John Hewitt]

No, the jumbling you describe (technically referred to as "reassortment") isn't mutation -- no more than is the jumbling of genetic material through sexual reproduction. But in addition to this, mutation in the influenza genome is, of course, constantly occurring as well -- in fact, much faster than in complex organisms, due partly to the very short generation times and partly to a lack of error-correction in the copying process. The price of this much variability is that huge numbers of nascent virions end up being mutated (or reassorted) beyond viability -- but the persistence of influenza stands as evidence that the formula works. Because human generation times are much too slow to permit responding in kind, human immune systems keep pace through a fascinating process called "affinity maturation", wherein the same fundamental rules apply, with natural selection influencing the outcome of competition between descendants of diverse B-cell clones.

As for whether scientists should debate creationists, I think it's pertinent to ask: for the benefit of what audience? If the answer is "the undecided among a scientifically illiterate public", then the scientist will always be at a disadvantage: his arguments have to be expanded and supported, while those of his opponent need merely have a certain intuitive or emotional appeal.

It's easier to throw rocks than it is to catch them.

I don't really see the relevance of these comments.

Your description of flu virus is the same as the one I already gave and I will merely repeat that this is not the way organisms normally evolve.
The origin of antibody diversity in the immune system is not at all like flu virus but I do not intend extending my discussion into that topic.
I have already explained my views on debating creationists.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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?

Totally naive. The "debate" its absurd from the very beginning, things are as they are, no matter what people "believe" or not.

That said, with an audience composed of ignorants, who do you think will "win" the debate (in the sense of getting the votes from the audience)?

Thats right. Ignorants. And according to my calculations they are the majority.

 

[Dymanic]

Your description of flu virus is the same as the one I already gave and I will merely repeat that this is not the way organisms normally evolve.

To "merely repeat" is what might be expected from a creationist; I'd like to invite you to expand and support your arguments. The description you already gave was focused entirely on how variation is exchanged between viral strains by reassortment, completely ignoring the question of where that variation comes from in the first place.

That aside, you have yet to offer any good reason why this random mixing of genes in influenza should be regarded as fundamentally different from the random mixing of genes in sexually-reproducing organisms; seems to me that while the mechanical details are certainly different, it's still the same basic idea.

 

[articulett]

I don't really see the relevance of these comments.

Your description of flu virus is the same as the one I already gave and I will merely repeat that this is not the way organisms normally evolve.
The origin of antibody diversity in the immune system is not at all like flu virus but I do not intend extending my discussion into that topic.
I have already explained my views on debating creationists.

What about creationists like rttjc...?

 

[articulett]

Totally naive. The "debate" its absurd from the very beginning, things are as they are, no matter what people "believe" or not.

That said, with an audience composed of ignorants, who do you think will "win" the debate (in the sense of getting the votes from the audience)?

Thats right. Ignorants. And according to my calculations they are the

majority.

And they spawn more--ignorance promoting genes seeped in ignorance promoting memes because they're invisible overlord tells them to go forth and multiply. Exponential growth of stupidity. For most, I suspect mockery and ignoring them the same way one would treat astrologers trying to debate astronomers...the way we treat conspiracy theorists. Delusions are not curable through reason.

 

[blutoski]

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.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but as a PhD in microbiology - and married to a Southern Baptist MD with a microbi undergrad who would agree with me - Dr. Behe is regarded as a sad joke in the field of microbiology.

It is particularly notable that in the Dover trial the judge regarded him as basically incompetent: Behe's testimony was refuted by real scientists.

The problem is that a debate setting does not have the time that the judge had to review the evidence fairly.



And with regard to Gish: I've actually debated him in person. He truly does do the "Gish Gallop". I clocked him at an average of 30 bold-faced lies per minute. Additionally, he had an important error in his powerpoint stack that I was able to confirm by calling the original author of the paper he was quoting. It's been eight years and Gish has not made the correction.

 

[blutoski]

As for whether scientists should debate creationists, I think it's pertinent to ask: for the benefit of what audience?

I think this is important. Whenever we've had a debate here in BC, the audience has been stacked by fundies. They bus in Mennonites from the Fraser Valley so there's a 50:1 ratio of fundies to undecided. They're here for the "mock the atheist" show; they're not here to learn. Next week, it's the Christian Power Team bending steel bars, and the week after that, it's Gibson's Passion movie night.

 

[Mobyseven]

On this topic, has anybody seen the Swift article about the debate at Melbourne University on August 2nd.

I live at the uni, so I think I might go along to see the debate live. I find it telling that it is sponsored not by the Science faculty, but the Philosophy department.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dymanic
As for whether scientists should debate creationists, I think it's pertinent to ask: for the benefit of what audience?

I think this is important. Whenever we've had a debate here in BC, the audience has been stacked by fundies. They bus in Mennonites from the Fraser Valley so there's a 50:1 ratio of fundies to undecided. They're here for the "mock the atheist" show; they're not here to learn. Next week, it's the Christian Power Team bending steel bars, and the week after that, it's Gibson's Passion movie night.

These are both key issues and are part the major deficiency on the side of skepticism and science. We are not as well versed in the science of persuasion as the religion promoters (in this case) are. Of course they stack the audience, it is not simply interested parties, it is interested campaigners with a cause. They've been primed with earlier tactics of persuasion and encouraged to come promote their cause. They may have even been bused or driven in van pools to the venue.

I promote a cause as well, the critical thinking cause, but no one recruited me. And it isn't likely anyone actively recruited other skeptics here either. We are here because we are interested and personally concerned. Religion is promoted with all the sales tactics developed by the best of the best: marketers.

Yes, we should be debating, but we also need to choose venues that are likely to reach the uncommitted, primarily, and possibly the not completely committed, secondarily. And, we need to be at least as skilled at the art of persuasion as the religion agenda promoters. We should be looking at and countering the tactics of persuasion used by the other side with as much importance applied as we apply to the accuracy of our science.

Teach the fisherman to fish. I believe it is as productive if not more productive to teach people about the tactics being used to persuade them than it is to simply try to correct the incorrect facts which they have been persuaded were correct.

On that note, I have discussed the Creationists' debate tactics before. The main one used is to change the argument from one of Creation vs evolution to one of 'evolution is one of many theories'. That isn't true, there are no viable alternative theories on the table. ID has been discarded with genetic science breakthroughs.

Creationists try to make the argument about 'fairness'. This is often used in arguing for including alternative theories in school science classes. That is not the argument.

Creationists try to make the issue one of mainstream science having a bias against religion. We play into their hands on that one when we try to explain to laypersons that science doesn't test the 'why' or the 'designer'. The layperson doesn't typically understand that concept. Heck, skeptics and scientists often don't understand the concept well enough themselves to properly describe it.

And then there is the claim science is just another religion and scientists are fundamentalist evolution believers. This is a false characterization of science.

Again, yes, we should debate. We should address our target audience, not theirs. And we should control the debate, not let Creationists change to strawmen arguments and issues. And, most important of all, we need a good education in the science of persuasion to both recognize the tactics and to teach people how to defend against this 'dark art'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On this topic, has anybody seen the Swift article about the debate at Melbourne University on August 2nd.

I live at the uni, so I think I might go along to see the debate live. I find it telling that it is sponsored not by the Science faculty, but the Philosophy department.

I wonder if the philosophy department was persuaded after the science department rejected the topic?

I see though, the university has a History and Philosophy of Science department so perhaps it isn't so 'telling' as you might think.

The Philosophy of Science

The philosophy of science seeks to analyse fundamental philosophical questions concerning scientific methodology, especialy in relation to probability and the use of statistics, and the status of scientific theories, and to answer such questions as:

* Does science lead to The Truth about Reality?
* Is there even such a thing as The Truth about Reality?
* Does The Scientific Method really exist?
* If The Scientific Method exists, how can it be justified?
* How does human consciousness interact with the physical world?
* Can science tell us everything that human beings can know?
* Does Mathematics really give us true certainty?
* Has science shown that God does not exist?
* What, if anything, is wrong with believing in astrology?

In our classes we do not seek to persuade you of "THE Definitive Answers" to any of these questions. Rather, the issues are discussed, and students are encouraged to resolve these questions for themselves. Our aim it to enable students to think carefully and critically.

The two staff members of the HPS program whose principal interests lie in the philosophy of science are Howard Sankey and Neil Thomason.

 

[VanillaCone]

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.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but as a PhD in microbiology - and married to a Southern Baptist MD with a microbi undergrad who would agree with me - Dr. Behe is regarded as a sad joke in the field of microbiology.

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

 

[Mobyseven]

I wonder if the philosophy department was persuaded after the science department rejected the topic?

I see though, the university has a History and Philosophy of Science department so perhaps it isn't so 'telling' as you might think.

I doubt the science department was ever shown the topic. I'm a philosphy student myself, so believe me when I say that this doesn't surprise me in the least.