Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

[JC Fla]

Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

They are afraid to ingest the amount of caffeine required to stay awake through the same old tiring, rote delivered, IQ lowering monotone that normally happens on any debate with an ID proponent. If I hear the eye theory about one more time...Anyway, why debate a faith issue with science? If people want to believe in young earth theory, great. Just do not try and drag me or my daughter into it. And stop trying to pass it off as science.

 

[scotth]

If people want to believe in young earth theory, great. Just do not try and drag me or my daughter into it. And stop trying to pass it off as science.

And stop doing all these things too:

Stop voting for or insisting on laws that uphold morals passed down in a book of fairy tales.
Stop voting for unqualified presidents because they believe the same stupid fairy tales.
Stop accusing me of lacking morals.

The problem is, their religious beliefs compell them to do all of these things. I don't see how you can keep these things from happening short of fixing the root cause, their belief in fairy tales.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I beg to differ. The leaders of the ID movement, and in particular the folks at the DI, know full well no one is afraid of them in the scientific community. The DI is consciously and willfully re-framing the debate because it convinces their followers, the believers, that the scientific community is arbitrarily excluding Christians' 'evidence' and the scientific community consists of a bunch of prejudiced atheists (maybe even working for Satan).

The DI wants the believers and potential believers to believe there is scientific evidence supporting ID and the scientific community is covering it up.

Evidence, The Wedge Strategy

The DI is on to us being on to them. Here's their response. The "Wedge Document": So What?

I'm telling you the DI isn't a Christian think tank, it's a 'Marketing Christ' think tank.

skeptigirl - Thanks for this! I had never heard of the wedge document, or its "explanation".

 

[Dr Adequate]

Tai Chi, Kent Hovind alone claims to have taken part in 90 debates. Who do you think was debating him?

I debate creationist loons just for the fun of watching them squirm. If the DI will pay my expenses, I'll be glad to flatten 'em.

I suggest the following format: three hours for their speaker to explain the evidence for the fairy-story about the magic tree and the talking snake; three hours for me to sketch out the evidence for evolution; one hour each for rebuttals.

This may sound a little long, but I'm not sure I could convey the essentials of the theory of evolution, geology, the fossil record, comparative morphology, biogeography, embryology, genetics, and the relevant topics in computer science and information theory in less than three hours. I think that three hours would probably still be cutting it rather fine, but I'm always game for a challenge.

The audience should be composed of people who have, or are studying for, scientific qualifications, so we won't have waste precious time explaining to them what the scientific method is, the meaning of the word "theory", et cetera.

Feel free to make your fellow-whackjobs aware of my offer, and let's see if they take me up on it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well......

Darwinists debate T'ai Chi...

...and T'ai Chi is a Creationist...

...so...

 

[Beleth]

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?

The part where you spell "despite" "b-a-s-e-d o-n".

 

[articulett]

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?

Excellent, that is exactly what creationists hope simpletons like you with think.

Scientists don't debate DI folks for the same reason Astronomers don't debate astrology folks--even if they publish horoscopes in major papers all over the world. Even if all the believers of astrology think scientists are afraid to debate them or are too closed-minded to understand their deep truths.

Science is about facts...evidence...axioms...the kind of stuff that is the same for everyone. Behe doesn't have any of that. No one at the Discovery Institute does.

Woo-folk can't debate because faith is not an accepted tool in actual debate. If you'd try to debate a person with a different woo than you, you would understand this. Or read the MDC application forms and try to sum up what the applicant is claiming.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip...

Do you know if their feelings are based on any evidence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That isn't really what they want though. What they really want is the opportunity to make sound-bite statements like "Darwinists won't debate us".

Bingo!

If you can't win the debate, reframe the debate question to one you can garner more converts with.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The part where you spell "despite" "b-a-s-e-d o-n".

Clever -> made me chuckle.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl - Thanks for this! I had never heard of the wedge document, or its "explanation".

You are most welcome. I'm on a mission marketing 'marketing awareness' to the skeptical community. Not that they aren't aware, but some in the skeptical community are not aware just how well the anti-science crowd uses the science of marketing and persuasion.

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

Sounds like a good, long way of saying "They make excuses".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sounds like a good, long way of saying "They make excuses".

I think there has to be some rationalizing going on even in the minds of the Evangelicals most closely associated with these marketing campaigns. But cognitive dissonance likely plays the biggest role. Don't think about the fact the evidence is overwhelmingly telling you the Bible is wrong. Instead, only think about your conviction the Bible is right.

 

[Wowbagger]

I noticed William Dembski's web site ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/ ) is rife with reasons not to bother having a scientific debate with him. Right on the home page it says (emphasis mine):

Uncommon Descent holds that...
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

How dare someone claim they are doing science, while blatantly promoting "cosmological" arguments!
How dare someone claim they are doing science, while claiming its focus on reality* is corrupting its reliable and repeatable results! (*which they refer to as a "materialistic ideology")
How dare someone claim they have "increasing empirical support" when they have never produced even one empirical fact, the whole time!

These guys simply don't seem to know or care about the difference between empirical fact and subjective judgment.

Some people, like Dr. A., are still willing to go for it, because they find the exercise amusing. But, serious scientific debate seems hopeless, if that is the ID attitude.

 

[Trigood]

My brother is a scientist who has supported Intelligent Design. He has had letters published in the local paper. It is highly upsetting to me. I don't really know how to deal with it. My Dad is perhaps rolling over in his grave (my Dad was a scientist as well). I hate to say this about my own brother, but sometimes, I don't recognize him.

ETA: I had an email exchange with him about it at least once. Basically, it comes down to the fact that he sees the possibility of "non-random" selection. It didn't convince me. I mean, that is so easy to fake! You can just say, "I don't see the randomness there" and voila! you must bring God into it. Something that looks non-random at one level, might be random at another level. The obvious question is, if you're trying to show some "intelligent force" is involved, is it even possible that that force could be anything other than God? It hardly seems likely! It just seems like he's looking for a way to "prove" God exists... which even if true, I don't think you can ever "prove." Which is what I believe most intelligent theologians would agree.

He also has complained in the past about other scientists not willing to discuss these issues with him. It seems like Dawkins has explained that pretty well in the cite above.

I believe that science is transparent and self-evident, and if you can't explain a scientific theory to a high-schooler, at least in its rudimentary aspects, I don't think it's a valid theory. At least the bare bones. I have advanced degrees, and no-one has ever been able to explain to me how ID is scientific. Just one person's opinion.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

My brother is a scientist who has supported Intelligent Design. He has had letters published in the local paper. It is highly upsetting to me. I don't really know how to deal with it. My Dad is perhaps rolling over in his grave (my Dad was a scientist as well). I hate to say this about my own brother, but sometimes, I don't recognize him.

What's his degree in and/or area of research?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Some people, like Dr. A., are still willing to go for it, because they find the exercise amusing. But, serious scientific debate seems hopeless, if that is the ID attitude.

We don't necessarily need to be giving their nonsense credibility by debating them, but we should address their attempts to portray science as biased against their religion. And we should pay attention to how their distortion of science and evidence affects the critical thinking of people they influence. If not then this anti-evolution stuff will take forever coming to an end and it could take a few people down on the way. I think of innocent 'unskilled in critical thinking' children who will have their education interfered with by all this nonsense.

In other words, we should address their attacks on science, but not in the way they are trying to frame the debate. We should address the attacks but put the discussion back into a reality frame while we do it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My brother is a scientist who has supported Intelligent Design. He has had letters published in the local paper. It is highly upsetting to me. I don't really know how to deal with it. My Dad is perhaps rolling over in his grave (my Dad was a scientist as well). I hate to say this about my own brother, but sometimes, I don't recognize him.

ETA: I had an email exchange with him about it at least once. Basically, it comes down to the fact that he sees the possibility of "non-random" selection. It didn't convince me. I mean, that is so easy to fake! You can just say, "I don't see the randomness there" and voila! you must bring God into it. Something that looks non-random at one level, might be random at another level. The obvious question is, if you're trying to show some "intelligent force" is involved, is it even possible that that force could be anything other than God? It hardly seems likely! It just seems like he's looking for a way to "prove" God exists... which even if true, I don't think you can ever "prove." Which is what I believe most intelligent theologians would agree.

He also has complained in the past about other scientists not willing to discuss these issues with him. It seems like Dawkins has explained that pretty well in the cite above.

I believe that science is transparent and self-evident, and if you can't explain a scientific theory to a high-schooler, at least in its rudimentary aspects, I don't think it's a valid theory. At least the bare bones. I have advanced degrees, and no-one has ever been able to explain to me how ID is scientific. Just one person's opinion.

He needs an introduction to the current science of genetics.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Actually, T'ai Chi got the intended message in the title. You fell for the carefully worded so as not to appear to be making an unsupported claim while making an unsupported claim message in the title.

When you can't talk about the actual article, talk about the person who posted a link to the article, or even things like silly English stuff, nitpicking about what that person typed in a title.

Seems to be proper skepticism soi far.

 

[Trigood]

What's his degree in and/or area of research?

He's actually a medical doctor. Quite learned in his field, actually, and I think he may regret being identified in the ID debate in the past, therefore I will not name him.