• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should scientists debate creationists?

Should scientists debate creationists?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 40 32.8%
  • No.

    Votes: 68 55.7%
  • Other.

    Votes: 14 11.5%

  • Total voters
    122
  • Poll closed .
If they want to debate... I say tell them to debate others with creation stories...there are tons... and when they have a winner... then we'll compare it with the theory supported by facts. In fact, I'm all for channeling woo against other woo... they can fritter away their energies and leave us alone. I want all the YEC's to know that Behe admits to common descent and an old earth... get Behe defending facts over faith... and then let Collins debate him over whether the designer interfered or not and when...

It's like mud wrestlings... it might make for an interesting spectator sport...
 
It's like mud wrestlings... it might make for an interesting spectator sport...


GAH!!! :boggled: :eek: :covereyes

I just got a mental picture of a mostly nekkid Dawkins mud-wrestling with a mostly nekkid Ham.

Not. Pretty.

I now go to wash my eyes and brain in acid.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
GAH!!! :boggled: :eek: :covereyes

I just got a mental picture of a mostly nekkid Dawkins mud-wrestling with a mostly nekkid Ham.

Not. Pretty.

I now go to wash my eyes and brain in acid.

Cheers,
TGHO

Not Dawkins... silly-- those who have creationist "stories"-- the scientologist can debate the Raelians over who has the truest creation story... and the Amish get slug it out with Behe... Dembski and Osama could go head to head-- Everyone who claims to have the story about how life started could debate their various woos until a winner was declared. And then, and only then... would the winner have the option of putting their claim in the arena with a scientist.

Now you've put an imagine in MY mind that needs obliterating. Egads. I was merely likening debate to a spectator sport--but thanks to you I got some frightening imagery added on.
 
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.

I've no doubt they would react exactly as you say, but debating creationists with no predefined rules of engagement still puts the evolutionist in an impossible situation. That's why I think it's better to propose a reasonable and specific set of conditions under which a debate would be accepted, thus putting the onus on the creationist to either accept those terms or explain why s/he will not.
 
..... 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.
I've also said the same thing. This whole evolution ID/Creation debate will eventually go the way of the flat Earth. Younger kids will incorporate genetic science revelations into their education and pretty soon ID/Creationism is going to look pretty ridiculous to the mainstream. Right now a lot of the mainstream, especially the ones who haven't learned much new science since they were in school, come from the era where a lot of our teachers told us evolution wasn't a certainty. With the revolution in genetic science it is only a matter of time before the mainstream catches up.

Maybe taking the stand there is nothing to debate until the ID/Creationists bring their science up to date might be a good approach. After all, they do mostly argue decades old science.
 
I've no doubt they would react exactly as you say, but debating creationists with no predefined rules of engagement still puts the evolutionist in an impossible situation. That's why I think it's better to propose a reasonable and specific set of conditions under which a debate would be accepted, thus putting the onus on the creationist to either accept those terms or explain why s/he will not.

I have to disagree with you here VC. What generally happens is that the rules are agreed to. And then, during the debate, they are broken. The trouble is that the general public won't remember the argument about the rules, so there is no "onus" on the creationists. They say what they want later, but a lot fewer people are even interested at that point.

You wrestle in the gutter, you're gonna get dirty, with no payoff.

ETA: And I still think it is wrong they took articulett's avatar away.
 
Last edited:
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 agree with this statement (except for the Cthuhlu thing - man is he gonna be pissed at you!) - my point was more that if they want to be treated like scientists, then they have to do science.
 
I've also said the same thing. This whole evolution ID/Creation debate will eventually go the way of the flat Earth. Younger kids will incorporate genetic science revelations into their education and pretty soon ID/Creationism is going to look pretty ridiculous to the mainstream. Right now a lot of the mainstream, especially the ones who haven't learned much new science since they were in school, come from the era where a lot of our teachers told us evolution wasn't a certainty. With the revolution in genetic science it is only a matter of time before the mainstream catches up.

Maybe taking the stand there is nothing to debate until the ID/Creationists bring their science up to date might be a good approach. After all, they do mostly argue decades old science.

Yes... because what IS there to debate? They seemed to be asking for explanations about evolution that they don't have the science background to understand. And we can ask for all the evidence in the world for their claims, but religion is used to being respected and deferred to without evidence--heck, it's "arrogant to question god"...

And they just never say anything. Like rttjc, they just shout the same emotion laden misinformation and obfuscation and nothingness and drown out anyone who might be curious as to what the evidence actually is. It just makes me think ill of all creationists, or feel sorry for them-- frankly, I'd rather not know someone was such an ignoramus.

I'm glad to educate the curious...glad to point to evidence... but so tired of the self righteous obfuscations and unwarranted attacks just for being willing to share the facts. Why should I care if someone wants to remain ignorant? I've just been taken in to many times by those who pretend to have questions or misunderstandings, but they're really trying to parlay their ignorance into the notion that evolution isn't plausible or has gaps--and therefore, their "intelligent designer" is the answer.

I think it's fun to debate them here...because others can learn even if they cannot...and many people read these threads. Plus you don't have to feel guilty in toying with them--they willingly came to a skeptics forum to preach woo (often pretending to have other motives, I might add)... they trip over their own words so easily, and I feel a bit of glee, as I bear witness to their decompensation.
 
I might be a creationist, well, a tiny little bit, maybe.

Okay, I do believe 99.98% that our existence is primal, meaning that nothing intelligent created us or helped in our development. No other technologically intelligent races are within detection range of us. No supernatural or otherworldly things exist.

But, there is that 2 hundredths of a percent chance in my mind that maybe something else exists and it is actually out of that possibility I derived my the true purpose for living from which then translates over to my 99.98% mundane existence.

Here are a couple creationist possibilities.

An advance race could have started our race with deliberate intention, either as an experiment or to give birth to a fresh intelligent race free of the interference from being exposed to them or some other reason. If this were the case, then either that advanced race would have to have made sure we were far enough away from their civilization that we could not detect them or they would have to incorporate something into our very biology which would allow them to alter our perceptions, mental processes and memories so that they could move freely among us while being undetected and we would be blind to the noise of their civilization. The point here is that you have to explain why we can not detect them.

An advanced being or race of beings using technology beyond our current understanding created the very fabric of our existence. Whoever created the existence did so with the knowledge that we would develop because of how they designed the rules for our existence. They would know that given time the existence they created working under the rules they set would develop intelligent life that would eventually learn how to work within the rules of the created existence. It might be that only a few such races would develop per galaxy. Or it might be that only one such race would develop per hundred galaxies. Or it might be that thousands of such races might develop within a galaxy. The key thing here is that whatever created us does not want us to know it and thus uses its power to prevent us from knowing it. It could just do this by keeping its distance. It could do this by using power over us that goes beyond our ability to overcome. But, in order for this to be true, you have to explain why we can not prove such a being or race or beings exist.

Since in any of these possibilities the requirement is that whoever created us must both desire us not to know of their existence and that they have the power to prevent us to know of their existence, the prudent choice of actions is to proceed as if they do not exist.

Except, perhaps for the purpose of philosophizing on how a race of Immortals who had extreme power and control over their existence would work. This could have value for several reasons.

One is that the Human race is heading towards developing such power, if it survives long enough.

Another can be to use such thought to derive possible meaning and purpose for our lives.
 
Oppressed:
those are fun thoughts to entertain... there sure is a lot we don't know... but it's kind of like the Matrix argument... if there is no evidence in support of it--and it takes the same kind of interpretative dance to explain this lack of evidence (somebody doesn't want us to know...somebody wants us to have "faith")-- then it's hard to debate.

But it sounds like it could describe humans of the future... seeding planets with DNA in an either accidentally or as part of a controlled experiment...

If you have such a theory to describe our existence, you'd have to posit when this happened and what was the goal and why is there so much waste...and it ends up being more implausible than plain old evolution doing trillions of experiments and exponentially copying the winning combinations while culling the failures via the environment.

It reminds me of people who think AIDS was created as a conspiracy. The facts are that nature does stuff like this all the time. Many life forms have sexually transmitted diseases, because that's a sure way for diseases to get themselves copied into new vectors--they hitch a ride on some primal instinct of another. Apes had the virus. Humans eat bushmeat... apes bite those who try to kill them... the species are close enough to share some viruses...and it's a virus that doesn't produce distinct symptons... rather it lives in a vector and slowly destroys their immune system while keeping it's vector strong enough to pass it on for some time.

Humans aren't smart enough to invent something like that and you don't need to... nature has been evolving microbes of all sorts long before humans were around... But it makes a compelling story. I think science fact is more interesting than science fiction, but the world we are creating and discovering now and in the future would make the coolest science fiction for people of the past.
 
Teleology gets us nowhere if we can't find the source and things work just as well without it.
 
Articulett:
I think that between the two possibilities I postulate above, I think the second more likely than the first, but I am discussing that possibility more on another thread.

For the second, I think it would be more likely that a race seeding us or controlling us as an experiment to some extent is more likely only if they are actively preventing us from detecting them. Advanced civilizations are noisy. We would hear any advanced civilization of significant age if it were near us and likely hear them if they had even traveled close to us.

But how could they do this? Well, it gets into the power of what mastering molecular engineering is capable of. A nano engineered computer integrated into our DNA and brain could be able to control important aspects of our perception, thought and memory.

It would have to deal with some pretty significant bending of our perception, but such technology could do it. We literally could have an huge alien city existing in the middle of Europe and have such an implant bend our perceptions, thoughts and memories such that we would not detect it or even notice something wrong with the missing space the city occupied. Well, the greater the thing being hidden, the more effort it would take on their part and the greater chance for minor slips. But memories of such slips could then be manipulated and/or erased. Still, it would be more likely they would minimize their presence to make it easier to cover up.

As to when such a thing could have happened, well, it could have begun 100,000 years ago or 100,000,000 years ago.

As for why such waste, what waste do you speak of? One of the whole points of such s thing would be to allow as close to a natural and undisturbed development as possible, hence why they would take such extreme effort to keep us from knowing of their existence. They might make a few deliberate changes to set us going in a particular direction, but to have a cleaner experiment or a more natural development, they would have to minimize they effect on us.

As to why, well, consider some of the goals that would fit our own experiments we have performed on primitive life forms. We have tried experiments to develop life from scratch to see how it might have developed in the first place. We have placed or gone to observe many primitive species to learn how they are developing. It is possible we are nothing more than such an experiment. I hope not, because that might place us as being allowed to only develop to a certain point. I also think it is less likely than one other goal I have thought of.

Consider, a race achieves virtual immortality. After so much time passes, how do they introduce new ideas and new thoughts? Such a goal could become of extraordinary importance to them. One way to do this would be to set up a situation where a new intelligent life form would develop and then allow that life to develop with as little outside disturbance as possible. They would likely watch such a race develop closely while insuring that the race could not detect them. This could be accomplished by the integration of nano scale engineering involving our DNA and brains. They would likely go through great effort to also minimize their physical presence to minimize what they would have to disturb to conceal their presence.

But such an immortal race would be quite capable of carrying out such plans over hundreds of millions of years. It could even become considered to them as giving birth to a new child in their race, meaning that they would consider our entire race a child which was developing towards a similar immortal stage as they. But, so important would the idea of new ways of thinking or fresh viewpoints, they would have to keep us unaware of them.

Please keep in mind I am not posing this as what I believe. I am posing it as a possibility developed to handle the known fact that we have no provable evidence of alien races or of supernatural beings.

Occam's razor: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

The simplest solution is that we are a primal race naturally developing in a physical existence that has nothing supernatural in it.

But, while Humans are not now smart enough to invent the technology to do something like some of the things I have described, Humans will become smart enough and will develop such technology. That is, if Humans do not become extinct first.
 
How about non biologists only. Biologists might give a figleaf of respectibility, but a layperson who is merely a prominent rationalist, or humnaist...

Especially as in the UK many of them happento be successful stand up comedien(enne)s and thus good at the mockery too... For exammple the late Linda Smith
 
There's no evidence for any interference in natural selection to get humans from our primate ancestors. It isn't only Occam's Razor, it is also the fact the genetic evidence does not suggest any inexplicable genetic event.
 
I have to disagree with you here VC. What generally happens is that the rules are agreed to. And then, during the debate, they are broken. The trouble is that the general public won't remember the argument about the rules, so there is no "onus" on the creationists. They say what they want later, but a lot fewer people are even interested at that point.

You wrestle in the gutter, you're gonna get dirty, with no payoff.

Now you've got me thinking -- maybe the thing to do is hire professional satirists and comedians to pose as scientists, and then have them agree to a debate but spend the entire time mocking the creationist. It would free up scientists to do real work, and even if the satirist technically "lost," it would be a heck of a lot more entertaining to watch.

"I'd love to debate you, Mr. Behe, but unfortunately I'll be out of town that week. Would it be OK if my assistant, Dr. Steven Wright, debated you instead?"

I might even chip in to watch something like that on pay-per-view.

"If sophisticated organic designs can't develop by random chance, then how do you explain really good macaroni art?"
 
Skeptigirl,

There is still a lot of big holes in or understanding of evolution. In particular there are some significant leaps and changes that we can not exactly explain yet. We will probably eventually be able to explain it, but not yet.

This leaves open the possibility that maybe some outside influence might have come and altered our evolution in order to bring Humans forth. I strongly doubt this, but it is still a possibility we have not yet ruled out, because we can not yet explain that change which brought about modern Humans. This is one of the reasons I refer to Occam's Razor.

The biggest problem I have with this particular possibility is I think that if it was some space fairing race which did it, we should be able to hear them. Advanced civilizations are very noisy.

But the other major possibility which we can NOT prove is wrong is that something of power beyond our understanding created our entire existence. Something with that amount of power could have created us starting with the Big Bang and used the long periods of time to achieve its goal. Or, something that powerful could have created a hundred years ago and created everything necessary to provide us the evidence we see to make us believe our existence is much older.

I can look at our current technology and with us having to discover any new fundamental knowledge of physics, we can develop the power to create a virtual environment which when immersed in it we would be unable to distinguish it from reality. Because of this, there lies the possibility we are in fact living in such a virtual reality.

If we were, we could NOT prove it.

But, the simplest truth would be the most mundane answer, that there are no gods, there is no life beyond this one, we are not in a virtual reality and there are no advanced aliens within detection range of us.
 
Skeptigirl,

There is still a lot of big holes in or understanding of evolution. In particular there are some significant leaps and changes that we can not exactly explain yet. We will probably eventually be able to explain it, but not yet.

This leaves open the possibility that maybe some outside influence might have come and altered our evolution in order to bring Humans forth. I strongly doubt this, but it is still a possibility we have not yet ruled out, because we can not yet explain that change which brought about modern Humans. This is one of the reasons I refer to Occam's Razor.

The biggest problem I have with this particular possibility is I think that if it was some space fairing race which did it, we should be able to hear them. Advanced civilizations are very noisy.

But the other major possibility which we can NOT prove is wrong is that something of power beyond our understanding created our entire existence. Something with that amount of power could have created us starting with the Big Bang and used the long periods of time to achieve its goal. Or, something that powerful could have created a hundred years ago and created everything necessary to provide us the evidence we see to make us believe our existence is much older.

I can look at our current technology and with us having to discover any new fundamental knowledge of physics, we can develop the power to create a virtual environment which when immersed in it we would be unable to distinguish it from reality. Because of this, there lies the possibility we are in fact living in such a virtual reality.

If we were, we could NOT prove it.

But, the simplest truth would be the most mundane answer, that there are no gods, there is no life beyond this one, we are not in a virtual reality and there are no advanced aliens within detection range of us.
There are no big holes in evolution theory, maybe there were 30 years ago. Abiogenesis has not yet been determined.

As far as you can't prove gods exist or don't, that's a philosophical exercise only. I can study anthropology of myths and show all religions are man made. I can examine religious texts and determine that they have clear evidence of being written by humans and no evidence whatsoever that those humans had any contact with real gods when they made up the myths.

Any god that interacts with people has to have an effect which is measurable. No gods have been detected.

That leaves an unlikely god who either hides his tracks by making us forget his actions or only answering prayers when we aren't looking or a god who never interacts with the Universe and then you have the problem of how would we be writing religious texts about such a god then?

So if you want to waste time on a philosophical exercise that science can't prove invisible pink unicorns are in my backyard, have at it. I find such exercises more like rationalizing the cognitive dissonance of scientists who can't let go of their god beliefs.

As to evidence life was seeded here in a meteorite or comet or aliens experimented on some chimpanzees, the genetic evidence shows all evidence so far points to a single emergence of life. There is nothing unusual between the genome of the great apes and humans that natural selection cannot account for (no alien DNA). When we figure out how the first life forms began we'll know it the conditions existed on Earth or had to have started somewhere else. I'll wait for the evidence.

So what specifically are you referring to when you make the claim I should leave my mind open to some "thing" (IE gods) having had a hand in things? Because I ain't buying it.
 
Just because Germans only "lit" one Parliament building, while Americans demolished two "Towers" for the same purpose of starting a War, does not make Americans smarter than Germans, some would say the opposite is true... Personally I think that they are both as dumb as each other in that context.
By the same token the presumption that Humanity is somehow more relevant than any other species, shows how again too, there is a collective delusion, both as individuals and as a conglomerate.
As Humans we have yet to understand what life is, and where it exists.
We, as the whole Universe, are Electronic (ElectroMagnetic) in essence of control, and Biology are but subjected mechanics.
At least in Physics one has the clear mind to say... We don't know (the more competent).
But Biologists have got it all figured out, the Machine developed itself by means of Natural Selection, forget the Software, it's Evolution.
Talk about Grandeur-ism!
Man do I like your signature 'Culett.

Zero PLUS a little less...
Keep Clearing my mind, and now all I have is a Blank...
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom