Should scientists debate creationists?

[articulett]

And I still advocate mockery of creationists over debating them.

I like the way Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Steven Colbert mock them... I think that raises consciousness just like "Archie Bunker" raised consciousness by being the bigot you didn't want to be. Maybe that spreads the message faster than giving them credence--it's certainly more fun.

 

[JoeEllison]

And I still advocate mockery of creationists over debating them.

I like the way Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Steven Colbert mock them... I think that raises consciousness just like "Archie Bunker" raised consciousness by being the bigot you didn't want to be. Maybe that spreads the message faster than giving them credence--it's certainly more fun.

And, frankly, since nothing at all seems to work, you might as well have some fun at it?

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

I must say this thread has changed my view. I was for taking creationists to task, being exposed to so many. However, I realize my first reaction was to indeed have fun at their expense, which has lead to many more realistic discussions. And I have found many more people with similar views with which to associate. And it's far more fun.

So I voted Yes before, but would change my vote now. I would likely vote No if I were voting now.

 

[articulett]

And, frankly, since nothing at all seems to work, you might as well have some fun at it?

Well, sure... I love irony... and they are so full of it.

I mean, if people sincerely want to know the answer to something...show them and tell them... but I am so sick of the same ridiculous loaded questions that they all seem to get from the same source and pretend they just thought of it themselves--

And since I am quite certain I have only one life, then I am damn I am going to have some fun with it and help my fellow inhabitants have a little fun in the process.

Growing up should entail a little bit of poking fun at yourself, others, and former beliefs that you've outgrown. As soon as a creationist gets a clue, they are welcome to join in.

 

[VanillaCone]

What is it you think I said that you disagree with?

This what you said that I disagree with, which is why I quoted it just above the part where I said I disagreed. Respectfully.

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 still think, after weighing the pros and cons, that debating any creationist in any environment helps their cause more than it hurts their cause.

 

[Questioninggeller]

I must say this thread has changed my view. I was for taking creationists to task, being exposed to so many. However, I realize my first reaction was to indeed have fun at their expense, which has lead to many more realistic discussions. And I have found many more people with similar views with which to associate. And it's far more fun.

So I voted Yes before, but would change my vote now. I would likely vote No if I were voting now.

I was once in favor of debates too, but I have changed my opinion as well. Dawkins presents a compelling reason to decline such an event.

When the creationists want to play science and write in scholarly journals then the debates will have value. Until then it just gives the creationists publicity.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
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.

There would be no need to even mention it if the pro-science side wasn't being manipulated by the anti-science side in debates like ID vs evolution theory. I watched the evolution debaters miss the changing of the question from 'ID vs evolution' to 'teaching all theories' over and over before I began my personal campaign to increase awareness of these tactics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

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. ....

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

I feel the forums are indeed great places to fine tune one's position and knowledge on scientific subjects.

I only go so far with the supporting evidence. Once it is obvious the person can't comprehend the evidence for whatever reason, that's when it is time to start pointing out the persuasion tactics that either they are using (like straw men and goalpost moving) or the tactics they have fallen victim to. So for example, in the HIV doesn't cause AIDS thread I am addressing the guy's incorrect belief that a few retrovirus researchers play up the HIV as the cause of AIDS because they are making a living at it.

This is a common theme we should all pay more attention to. A lot of the conspiracy believers couldn't maintain their belief without the underlying premise that scientists are either non-existent, duped, or in on the conspiracies. All the facts in the world won't be persuasive unless we address the underlying false premise that allows the CT believer to toss the evidence aside.

Instead of arguing the facts which one normally discusses, I'm looking at the other factors for the guy's bizarre beliefs. I don't expect to make instant progress. Nor do I expect to convince everyone. This is sort of an experimental tactic I am taking. But one thing I am sure of, when knowledge fails to convince, then you aren't dealing with a knowledge deficit. Repeating the facts is like repeating the same sequence of keystrokes on your computer that didn't work the last time. You have to try something else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This what you said that I disagree with, which is why I quoted it just above the part where I said I disagreed. Respectfully....

I still think, after weighing the pros and cons, that debating any creationist in any environment helps their cause more than it hurts their cause.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
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.

And then what do you think of the second half of my statement? Refusing to debate sometimes gives the Creation promoter an example to flout of science excluding anything from religion. So they claim that ID is a viable theory but scientists conspire to suppress it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was once in favor of debates too, but I have changed my opinion as well. Dawkins presents a compelling reason to decline such an event.

When the creationists want to play science and write in scholarly journals then the debates will have value. Until then it just gives the creationists publicity.

Whether we decline or accept, we need to be exposing the fact these guys can't support their claims among knowledgeable peers. It's a fine line, you have to say the Creationists have failed to convince their peers while at the same time countering their claim those peers are rejecting the evidence because of science's supposed anti-religion campaign. If you just ignore the evolution deniers out of principle, they twist your refusal to debate into fodder for their cause.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I still advocate mockery of creationists over debating them.

I like the way Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Steven Colbert mock them... I think that raises consciousness just like "Archie Bunker" raised consciousness by being the bigot you didn't want to be. Maybe that spreads the message faster than giving them credence--it's certainly more fun.

It takes a lot of skill to be satirical. Anything less looks rude and doesn't help the science side look better. Remember, a lot of people have religion because they enjoy belonging. Insulting a group like that only makes them turn further in to the group.

 

[JoeEllison]

There would be no need to even mention it if the pro-science side wasn't being manipulated by the anti-science side in debates like ID vs evolution theory. I watched the evolution debaters miss the changing of the question from 'ID vs evolution' to 'teaching all theories' over and over before I began my personal campaign to increase awareness of these tactics.

They are slippery, that's true. I'm sort of political, and you see the same sort of things with politicians of a certain stripe. They have learned to answer the question that they have a prepared answer for, even if it isn't the question they are actually being asked. They are also adept at turning and twisting the other side's strengths into weaknesses. Ask Al Gore.

At very least, I'd have to suggest that scientists not debate creationists, unless they are willing to do research into the tactics used by the creationists, and take some classes on debating. I think we both agree that being knowledgeable about evolution isn't enough.

 

[Mobyseven]

Can I just restate the point I made earlier: That no one is refusing to debate them.

If they want scientific debate, then they can have scientific debate anytime! All they have to do is go through the right channels - do some research, write a paper, get it published, let people review and criticize it.

You know, like...er, science?

What they want isn't a debate. It's thirty minutes to grandstand for a large public audience, thirty minutes to spread propaganda, and thirty minutes to throw as many false claims as possible onto the table to see which ones stick. When they decide they are interested in doing science, then they'll get the debateof their lives.

 

[pgwenthold]

Can I just restate the point I made earlier: That no one is refusing to debate them.

If they want scientific debate, then they can have scientific debate anytime! All they have to do is go through the right channels - do some research, write a paper, get it published, let people review and criticize it.

You know, like...er, science?

What they want isn't a debate. It's thirty minutes to grandstand for a large public audience, thirty minutes to spread propaganda, and thirty minutes to throw as many false claims as possible onto the table to see which ones stick. When they decide they are interested in doing science, then they'll get the debateof their lives.

I am coming late to the party, but I second Mobyseven's sentiment (and have said it before in like threads).

The answer to a challenge to debate is to point out that the debate is always available, and to invite the person to a SCIENTIFIC debate, using scientiific venues, such as publication and conferences. Scientists debate each other all the time. If creationists want to be part of science, they need to play by science rules like everyone else.

Doing a "debate" like they want is not how science is done. Don't play the game by their rules, play by ours (and note, "our rules" have nothing to do with evolution vs creation - they were established long before evolution was described (in fact, Darwin followed the rules by publishing) and apply to all scientific fields).

 

[slyjoe]

...snip

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?

Just the republican presidential debate where 3 of the candidates raised their hand regarding not really believing evolution. It convinced me to vote for someone else.

And by the way articulett, your new avatar, at first glance, was strangely erotic.

ETA: and by the way, the ID vs creation debates as they have always gone made me vote no in the poll.

 

[slyjoe]

Hey articulett - bring back the avatar!

 

[articulett]

Hey articulett - bring back the avatar!

I can't...flogged by admin.

But I have it on my profile page...
And on this thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2781361#post2781361

I guess some people have a hard-on over computer hardware.

 

[articulett]

It takes a lot of skill to be satirical. Anything less looks rude and doesn't help the science side look better. Remember, a lot of people have religion because they enjoy belonging. Insulting a group like that only makes them turn further in to the group.

That's true, but I advocate debate aborting techniques. When someone asks me if I "believe in evolution". I tell them, "Yes...and I believe in gravity too." I may go on to add: In the world of real science we "accept" evolution as we do all theories like gravity and atomics and germ theory because they are supported by reams of evidence (none provided in any scripture, mind you). Science is about the stuff that is true even when nobody believes it--and it's about understanding that stuff.

The earth was still spherical even though humans spent many years thinking it was as flat as it looked--and no divine entity thought to clue them in otherwise. I don't know if it was debate that eventually spread this knowledge to the masses or the fact that it was pretty damn useful for finding out more and more about the world.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Can I just restate the point I made earlier: That no one is refusing to debate them.

If they want scientific debate, then they can have scientific debate anytime! All they have to do is go through the right channels - do some research, write a paper, get it published, let people review and criticize it.

You know, like...er, science?

What they want isn't a debate. It's thirty minutes to grandstand for a large public audience, thirty minutes to spread propaganda, and thirty minutes to throw as many false claims as possible onto the table to see which ones stick. When they decide they are interested in doing science, then they'll get the debateof their lives.

Whilst I agree with Moby here, I think the day creationists do science is the same day that Cthuhlu rises from his watery home and eats everyone. It's just not going to happen. Science is the antithesis of creationism.

I can't...flogged by admin.

Oooooo!! Lucky you! Was it jmercer? He loves a good flogging!



Cheers,
TGHO

 

[articulett]

Oooooo!! Lucky you! Was it jmercer? He loves a good flogging!



Cheers,
TGHO

Psychic...