Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

The answer is on the order of the following maxim:

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get your clothes dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

There is no point in debating closed minds. A fundie bumper sticker I saw sums up the entire fundamentalist mindset for me:

God said it; I believe it; that settles it.


The major difference between ID'ers and (most) "Darwinists" (if indeed there ARE such a thing) is that a "Darwinist" would admit they were wrong if shown convincing evidence. ID'ers have built their entire structure on a foundation of a mystical omnipotent being, so it is impossible for them to consider even the possibility of no god without having their entire world collapsing around them.

I don't deal with religious zealots involved in a holy war, and ID'ers are exactly that. Holy wars tend to be more brutal and violent because there can be absolutely NO compromise. You can't sell half your soul to the devil. Because I am a reasonable person and willing to at least listen to other arguments and entertain the possibility that I might be in error, I refuse to waste my time on people who aren't.

Beanbag
 
Beanbag said:
The answer is on the order of the following maxim:

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get your clothes dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
Click to expand...
You rat--you beat me to it.

must-be-afraid-to-lose.png
 
Scientists are perfectly willing to debate ID advocates. The only problem is that scientists insist upon doing it by using scientific procedures. Things like, peer-reviewed science journals (there are a load full of biology journals in the library - lots of debate goes on in them) and scientific conferences.

When the IDiots show up at a meeting of the AAAS, there will be plenty of debate. Of course, as the IDiots know, they will be hammered there, but hey, they ask for it. That's why they don't show up. So they can make pronouncements about how no one will debate them. No, kitten, you play by science rules, not the other way around.

I am an internationally recognized scientist. I have never once done a "debate" like they want to do with anyone. That's not to say that I haven't had issues with other people, and that we haven't discussed them. Heck, it has happened in public fora (in addition to within the literature). That's the way science gets done. Their version of "debate" is solely PR and has nothing to do with advancing science.
 
scotth said:
Why is T'ai Chi afraid to have a comment more substantial then 'interesting'?

T'ai Chi, why aren't you embarrassed by how every article you post is shown to be pure crap?
Click to expand...

I'm embarassed at some of the highly emotional responses I receive...
 
Mojo said:
When you say "us", are you suggesting that
(irrelevant parts snipped)
Click to expand...

I'm stating basically the title of the article, that the ID proponents, the authors of the article, feel, based on evidence, that Darwinists are afraid to debate them.

What of this is so confusing for you?
 
T'ai Chi said:
I'm embarassed at some of the highly emotional responses I receive...
Click to expand...

Could you point out some you consider to be "highly emotional"? Even better would be if you could point out some which are embarassingly so...
 
T'ai Chi said:
I'm stating basically the title of the article, that the ID proponents, the authors of the article, feel, based on evidence, that Darwinists are afraid to debate them.

What of this is so confusing for you?
Click to expand...

Nothing, except for your use of the word "us" and your misuse of the word "evidence".
 
So it confuses you. Nothing wrong with admitting that.

Now if you could just manage to focus on the article content and cease pretending that bickering about several words in a title makes any difference.
 
T'ai Chi said:
So it confuses you. Nothing wrong with admitting that.

Now if you could just manage to focus on the article content and cease pretending that bickering about several words in a title makes any difference.
Click to expand...

Sure.
It is not censorship if scientists do not want to waste their valuable time "debating" a religious premise disguised as a scientific theory. It would be the same thing as me going to the local church and trying to debate the existence of God while the pastor is giving his sermon, then yelling "Censorship!" as the ushers escorted me out.
Now that your question has been answered, we can move onto other things.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that the article, "Are the Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?" (note that you got the headline wrong and erred in the gist of the story) would merit a one-word answer: No.
They are, however, weary, annoyed and irked that they have to field these endless challenges. The ID'ers are not interested in debate but in quarreling and preaching to the many in their ill-informed choir. As Beanbag said, the ID side is close-minded; no amount of evidence will ever be enough, so why bother?
 
Questioninggeller said:
The DI should get their material published in science journals. Once it gets published scientists can debate it as a theory.

Until then there's nothing to debate, ID isn't science.
Click to expand...
Questioninggeller has the ideal response and makes the point we should make responding to this DI ploy. Above anything else, reframing the question is critical here.

It is obvious the author of that article purposefully used the tactic of claiming 'fear of their ideas' was at issue. That is how they wish to 'frame' the debate. And, by doing so they have been successful in the past, to a point anyway. The purposeful use of this framing serves to change the debate from one of science vs science to one of, "why is science afraid of our ideas?

What is the gain from making the debate about "fear of our ideas" besides the obvious that they can't win a science debate? Are they merely trying to goad their way into the campus arena? Partially perhaps, but there is a greater goal here. The ideas of Jesus are supposedly dangerous to the status quo. Religious persecution is something which Christian leaders have exploited time and time again as a rallying cry for the faithful to follow those leaders and resist competing leadership.

So what better way for the DI to frame the ID/Creationist theory vs evolution theory than as a debate over the scientific community's fear of their ideas? What else better explains the boycott of their ideas from scientific circles?

Don't fall into the trap of debating why ID isn't science or that you are not afraid of them. Don't fall into the other trap of debating "fairness" in science classrooms. We don't have to or need to answer the question as they framed it. There is no debate about the scientific community being afraid of ID. There is no debate about allowing all viable theories into the discussion in science classrooms. The debate is about the viability of the science supporting the theory of ID. (It doesn't really interest anybody outside of a small circle of friends that ID is not within the realm of science so don't waste your debate efforts with that distraction either.)

The DI has been successfully framing the ID vs evolution debate as a debate about the scientific community's arbitrary exclusion of any evidence or ideas that support the Christian Bible. You and I know there is no debate there. It simply is a fabricated claim. You can play into their hands and debate that no debate issue.

OR, you can re-frame the question as it should be, the scientific evidence supporting ID vs the scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution. And in this case that means calling these people on the fact they haven't been able to convince the scientific community that their theory is supportable. The scientific evidence which has been presented to the scientific community, going through the same screening process all other scientific evidence has to go through, has not convinced anyone outside of religious circles that ID is a valid theory.

The DI staff claim the following supports ID scientifically:

Center for Science and Culture (aka DI) - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated); By: Staff; Discovery Institute April 15, 2007

However, in Page 43/ Dover trial judge's decision:
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
Click to expand...

So if promoters of the ID theory want their theory recognized, they should know the evidence is what ultimately matters. And as such, it is the scientific community this debate should be taken to first, not the lay public. So should they be serious about a debate, then the debate should be among scholars in the biology department. After all, why should they fear a debate among the experts in the appropriate sciences?


Side note, I thought this was cute:

Dover v K. trial transcripts
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I have one question, and that's this: By my reckoning, this is the 40th day since the trial began and tonight will be the 40th night, and I would like to know if you did that on purpose.

THE COURT: Mr. Gillen, that is an interesting coincidence, but it was not by design.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FenrisWolf said:
One's right to free speech doesn't imply a requirement on the part of other people to listen to that speech. Nobody's talking about putting court orders on these ID people to shut them up, nor any other form of true censorship.

SMU faculty seems to think ID isn't worth including in their conference. That's not censorship, it's a judgment call. ID believers are welcome to organize their own conference, at their own expense, where they can spout whatever nonsense they want. I support their right to do so.
Click to expand...
The key here is "organize their own conference". If they want to be included in a scientific conference, they need to seek acceptance of their theories in the scientific community first and quit promoting the false claim the scientific community is excluding them because the scientific community arbitrarily excludes evidence which supports a Biblical description of events.
 
joobz said:
A search for "evolution" on pubmed pulls up 194,152 articles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
What are your detailed scientific critique of them all?
Click to expand...
Good one joobz! Score one, no make that 194,000 points for science.

The bottom line is the evidence is what matters. And if the evidence supported the religious view, they wouldn't need to be changing the debate question to one of, fear of their ideas and fairness in science classrooms.
 
I know I get chills every time I watch the footage of how Albert Einstein crushed a Newtonian scientist in a debate and thereby proved the Theory of Relativity.

Huh? That's not what happened? He made testable predictions and scientists looked at the data? Wow. Go figure.
 
Wowbagger said:
.....
I think the reality is that ID is afraid to do any real scientific work. They would rather spend their time inventing creative excuses, such as that article.

Although, I hardly see why I bothered making these points. "Darwinists don't want to debate us" is not evidence of an ID. I hardly see how it makes any difference in establishing facts.
Click to expand...
Actually, the folks at the DI spend their time cleverly and successfully marketing their religion. We think they are fools arguing ID vs evolution like many of the woo supporters in this forum and elsewhere. But the joke's on us. Here we thought evidence and scientific process mattered and they went and did a few focus groups and found the best marketing plans and now continue to have the majority opinion on their side among the masses.

In the end, there's just no question the scientific evidence and the scientific process will prevail. But the DI and all its counterparts are certainly going to see reality delayed as long as they can.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom