Should scientists debate creationists?

[Meadmaker]

That's one of the main reasons why I am firmly in support of school vouchers, charter schools, etc. I've given the matter a great deal of thought over the past 20 years and I've decided thats the best solution I feel is feasible for our society. Then this debate, and a whole host of other similar devisive issues in our society would simply go away.

I've started several threads over in politics in support of school vouchers. What's the most frequently voiced objection? Some of the voucher schools won't teach evolution.

 

[JoeEllison]

That's one of the main reasons why I am firmly in support of school vouchers, charter schools, etc. I've given the matter a great deal of thought over the past 20 years and I've decided thats the best solution I feel is feasible for our society. Then this debate, and a whole host of other similar devisive issues in our society would simply go away.

Wonderful. Let's teach children to be exactly as ignorant as their parents in the name of "choice". That's not an answer, that's a recipe for disaster.

 

[articulett]

I don't think anything you say to an older creationist is likely to change minds... I think the plasticity of the brain decreases as one ages and the longer one believes that "belief" is necessary for salvation, the harder it is to shed light on the subject. Many people would prefer to believe they have the truth rather than to learn they might be wrong. I would rather not know something than have the truth.

It is true, that mockery causes a kind of suffering or group adhesion. Like hazing in promotes in-group alliance. Laughing at Tom Cruise only makes him more sure of Scientology. This topic has been discussed at length in books such as "When Prophecy Fails". But I'm not sure there really are good ways to change minds. I think that the old way of thinking needs to be seen as outdated and dying out... and that young people need to be engaged and just shown the facts. They need to be shown why people believe the way they do and how people have long been making up explanations for things we didn't understand. We are a story telling species that has long made up explanations until science reveals our errors. Mostly, the creationists must not be given a forum where they are allowed to scare people into belief and fear of knowledge. Kids must see smart, bright, funny, trustworthy role models who understand evolution and are eager to share the facts.

I don't think debate or respect for "belief" works at all... unless I see evidence otherwise. I think piquing curiosity, humor, and questions work much better-- and getting rid of that inane notion that there is something good, special or salvation worthy about belief.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've started several threads over in politics in support of school vouchers. What's the most frequently voiced objection? Some of the voucher schools won't teach evolution.

In the US creationism/evolution is the educational battleground, so it's hardly surprising it's a focus of attention.

More important is what voucher schools will teach, be it Marxism, Ayurvedic learning, or racial stereotyping. Belief in UFO's. The Truther School in Oregon. Almost any social splinter can summon up enough vouchers to subsidise one special school for the next generation of believers. That way disaster lies.

 

[articulett]

Wonderful. Let's teach children to be exactly as ignorant as their parents in the name of "choice". That's not an answer, that's a recipe for disaster.

I agree. Public school has been a way to keep children integrated and able to function in a multicultural world. I think this sort of plan has no accountability and is a recipe for divisiveness and extreme "truths". What's to stop our government from funding a Nazi youth camp type school or a Jesus camp type school. I consider those both to be a breach of fiduciary responsibility. These little bigots grow up and spawn, you know. And I think the religious nepotism and general ignorance encouraged by religion has been a major downfall in the US administration. Don't make my taxes pay for kids' prejudices and ignorance. If I had my say, the money wasted on this inane war would go to health care for US citizens and end this primitive battle of supposed "good" versus "evil".

The Muslims have their religious schools... I can't say it works particularly well for them. I will strongly resist having to pay for another's' indoctrination. I already resent that my tax dollars are spent of "faith based initiatives" and failing programs that spread misinformation and don't work like "abstinence education". I reject faith as a supposed means of knowledge. I resent that tax dollars are spent for a minister to lead a prayer (over $200,000) per year in congress... and that chaplains are paid for in many areas of government.

School vouchers will divide a nation that has fought long and hard for civil rights. Religion moves science and civilization backwards wherever it inserts it's muddy paws.

I think there should be strong social disapproval of people making their children scientifically ignorant in the name of some supposed "higher truth". Look what Fred Phelps has done with his isolated little clan. I can't see this as being good for anybody and it sounds like another huge blow between the separation of church and state.

 

[Beth]

I've started several threads over in politics in support of school vouchers. What's the most frequently voiced objection? Some of the voucher schools won't teach evolution.

Yes, the objections are already flying in. Nothing I haven't thought long and hard about. But I'm not up for debate on the subject at this moment and this isn't the right forum for it. I don't hang out in the politics section much, so I haven't followed any threads here about it.

 

[cyborg]

Don't you actually mean that some pixies were originally Gods, until supplanted by Christianity? and became faries or saints (Brigit especially).

Good point. The RCC in particular made a lot of saints out of the local populace's myths making the whole sainthhood thing look like a lower level pantheon of minor gods.

But no, also the Roman gods evolved from more spirit like things (hence more pixie like) to the Greek ideas of what gods were.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, the objections are already flying in. Nothing I haven't thought long and hard about. But I'm not up for debate on the subject at this moment and this isn't the right forum for it. I don't hang out in the politics section much, so I haven't followed any threads here about it.

Agreed.

I think the one thing that is relevant about it is that this issue dominates so many people's thoughts. People, on either side of the creation/evolution divide, are just not very willing to live and let live.

If it is really that significant, I think that suggests we need to find a way to debate it and win. If it isn't that significant, we should ignore them.

 

[Mobyseven]

But, the true believers in Evolution can not prove “God does not exist”.

We need to get a 'head asplode' smilie...

 

[Mobyseven]

I'm late returning to the thread, and a lazy Australian. What are 'school vouchers'?

 

[articulett]

We need to get a 'head asplode' smilie...

as you wish...

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm late returning to the thread, and a lazy Australian. What are 'school vouchers'?

That's where the religious folks convince politicians to underfund public schools, and transfer the money to private, mostly religious, schools. It is part of the long term right-wing plan to completely eliminate public schools.

 

[Oppressed]

Should scientists debate creationists?

Absolutely and emphatically yes.

The reason is that if you are unwilling to debate with creationists then the creationist wins the debate and they use this win to convince people who have not firmly made the decision to more likely side with them.

You can not count on education in 1st thru 12th grade or even higher education to provide you a win without debating creationists.

Failure to effectively publicly debate creationists results in political changes of our social laws which can go so far as to result in forbidding the teaching of evolution in lower level schools or teaching creationism at the same time as evolution as both being of equal validity.

The debate is not about converting creationist to believing in evolution, though when that happens it is nice. The debate is about converting those people who do not have a strong belief one way or the other and thus they can go either way.

Considering that, would any of you who voted against scientist debating with creationist consider changing your mind?

 

[Dymanic]

The reason is that if you are unwilling to debate with creationists then the creationist wins the debate and they use this win to convince people who have not firmly made the decision to more likely side with them.

If a champion prize fighter successfully defends his title against every legitimate contender -- as evolutionary theory has done in the scientific arena for over a hundred years -- does he then "lose" by refusing to take on every two-bit, eye-poking, crotch-kicking, ear-biting street fighter willing to step up try his luck in the parking lot? Even the most dim-witted fan knows that if you want a shot at the champ, you gotta earn it.

You can not count on education in 1st thru 12th grade or even higher education to provide you a win without debating creationists.

Education isn't (or shouldn't be) about "winning" by "converting" pupils to your worldview (unless you are a creationist, of course). But I question both sides of your statement; you don't provide any support for your implicit claim that debating creationists would improve the situation.

The debate is about converting those people who do not have a strong belief one way or the other and thus they can go either way.

Then, because they are not in the business of "converting" people, scientists should abstain.

Failure to effectively publicly debate creationists results in political changes of our social laws which can go so far as to result in forbidding the teaching of evolution in lower level schools or teaching creationism at the same time as evolution as both being of equal validity.

I think the seriousness of that threat has been overstated. More importantly, I again question your assumption that this results from the failure to effectively debate creationists.

 

[Oppressed]

Well, I don’t believe politics is based on logic or the rational knowledge developed from science.

I believe the same is true for society.

I believe that there are many examples in history where popular but clearly untrue beliefs held by a society resulted in social rules and laws being made based on the untrue beliefs.

I believe that the best way to avoid clearly untrue beliefs from adversely affecting a society too much is through the dissemination of knowledge.

Do you realize what percentage of the US population believes in God? Of that percentage, what would be your rough guess at how many believe in Creationism?

True believers are waging an ideological war with any science that disagrees with their religion. They are very serious about this.

They are working very hard to present their view to the greater public as being the correct and true belief. If this is not opposed then it should be no surprise more people begin believing the true believers vision of Creationism.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I could swear I have heard several stories about creationists making potential political ground towards having Creationism taught in public school along with Evolution.

 

[jimbob]

I htink that rationalists should debate evolution. Biologists should be wary, as there is a chance that the creationist will come up with something ecample like

"So how does the lesser spotted warble wimble show evolution?"

It would be easy to find a particular bit of natural history that a biologist is not an expert in.

If this happens to a stand up commedien (e.g. Marcus Brigstocke), it is easier to keep to the main point.

(about 5 mins in for the rest of this week...)

 

[Dymanic]

I don’t believe politics is based on logic or the rational knowledge developed from science.

I believe the same is true for society.

I wholeheartedly agree -- and I'm not entirely convinced that things would be that much better if it were otherwise. Life provides many interesting challenges for those who love puzzles, but finding (or thinking you have found) the solution to some puzzle doesn't automatically guarantee that you will experience a higher quality of life as a result. Social structures need to take into account the way humans tend to feel about certain things, regardless of whether those feelings are firmly grounded in logic. Belief systems like Christianity have this down to a science (so to speak).

I believe that the best way to avoid clearly untrue beliefs from adversely affecting a society too much is through the dissemination of knowledge.

I agree with that as well; I just don't think public debates between scientists and creationists are an effective means of achieving that.

True believers are waging an ideological war with any science that disagrees with their religion. They are very serious about this.

That's true, but it's also true that this has been the case for some centuries, and they have been steadily losing ground all along.

They are working very hard to present their view to the greater public as being the correct and true belief.

And in doing so, they rely not only on outright lies, but appeals to emotion. This is an effective strategy, and, as long as the quality of the discourse is dictated by the nature of the venue, a strategy which can only be countered by responding in kind. It's hard to argue effectively from logic and reason if you're appearing as a guest on the Jerry Springer show.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I could swear I have heard several stories about creationists making potential political ground towards having Creationism taught in public school along with Evolution.

There have been a number of threads on it here. I believe Wikipedia's account of the history of the struggle is fairly accurate, and reviewing that, you'll see that creationists' success at promoting their agenda has been limited and fleeting.

 

[Beth]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I could swear I have heard several stories about creationists making potential political ground towards having Creationism taught in public school along with Evolution.

Hmmm. Back in the sixties, when I was a kid, I had a science teacher who told us flat out she didn't believe in evolution but was was going to have to teach us about it because it was required by law. So we got one quick summarization followed by her telling us her personal attitude was that when science showed that apes possessed a soul then she would believe that man evolved from apes.

Contrast that with the recent trial in Dover.

I think it's safe to say that things have changed a bit. Sometimes, you forget what things used to be like.

 

[JoeEllison]

Hmmm. Back in the sixties, when I was a kid, I had a science teacher who told us flat out she didn't believe in evolution but was was going to have to teach us about it because it was required by law. So we got one quick summarization followed by her telling us her personal attitude was that when science showed that apes possessed a soul then she would believe that man evolved from apes.

Contrast that with the recent trial in Dover.

I think it's safe to say that things have changed a bit. Sometimes, you forget what things used to be like.

Early, you seemed to be advocating for government supports for schools where the teachers don't have to mention evolution at all, and can just whip out their Bibles instead. So, are you in support of a world that goes backwards even further than when you were a kid?

 

[Questioninggeller]

...
The debate is not about converting creationist to believing in evolution, though when that happens it is nice. The debate is about converting those people who do not have a strong belief one way or the other and thus they can go either way.
...

Agreed, but a debate at a church or a college is not the place where pseudoscience can be effectively challenged. Tha audience is going to get what they want out of it.

Kent Hovind has proven that one can have no understanding of science, but yet package yourself as an "expert" debater at colleges. If Hovind is serious about his claims he should get his material published. The best way to deal with these people is to starve them of the publicity they seek.

Taking creationists to task should be done in literature and in the proper format in the media. But a public debate gives people the false impression that there is something to debate.

If creationists want to debate scientists they should do science. Until then there is nothing to debate in a equal time/public format.