Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

[Dancing David]

Well, Dawkins for one apparently refuses.

If he weren't afraid, he'd go do it and destroy the whole ID movement with his masses of evidence.

Refuses to debate who? When? Your second statement is jusr silly semantics. people will chose to beleive regardless of the evidence.

And that means what?

You have multiple offers for debate on this thread.

I believe I have seen the issue stated that it is hard to debate IDers because they just appeal to emotions and don't want to debate themselves.

I will debate them if they come to my town.

It would appear from past posts that you have not responded to many a specific critique in many a post. Does that mean you are afraid to debate? In the mathematician thread i and many other responded with specific critiques that you never answered. Does that mean all Tai Chis are afraid to debate?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The irony is that some months back T'ai Chi started a thread called "A Question For Richard Dawkins" or something like that. When it was suggested that he might post his query on the Richard Dawkins site forum in the hopes that the man himself might respond he chose to ignore the suggestion. He was prodded to re-post his question there several times more and yet never did so.

 

[articulett]

Does that mean all Tai Chis are afraid to debate?

I think it means that all t'ai chis lack the mental equipment to understand what exactly a debate is, much less participate in one.

The ID debate mantra can be summed up thusly: "explain to me how all this could be designed--I don't understand....therefore an "intelligent designer" must have done it--I win!!"

or the briefer version:

"All causes must have a bigger first cause; therefore there were talking snakes in a garden 6000 years ago--therefore my god is true."

Faith has no place in debate. The truth doesn't care about what people believe. And faith doesn't care about facts.

 

[Kil]

Live debates are a waste of time. The ID and creationist crowd have some very good speakers who make points using debating tactics that find a way around dealing with actual science. By contrast, the person debating evolution, while correct, often presents as much less entertaining. Duan Gish was something of an artist at debating for creationism. He used what is now called the “Gish Gallop” by throwing out so much information (baloney) at one time that his opponent had to ignore most of it to trash even a small part of it.

Live debates go to the best debater and not necessarily to the person who is right. It’s as simple as that.

Now I have no doubt that Richard Dawkins could handle a live debate. He is not easily rattled. But in the case of ID there is nothing to debate. So why show up?

I don’t think ID even rises to the level of scientific hypothesis, since it is not testable, which is a requirement if a hypothesis if it is to move along the path to becoming a theory. They can dress it up with scientific lingo all they want to and it is still only an “argument from incredulity”. Since when has a logical fallacy risen to the level of anything even remotely scientific?

That said, creationists are loath to get into formal written debates. They avoid them like they avoid the science that they dismiss. Now, a formal written debate would truly level the playing field because any assertion could be thoughtfully rebutted. No playing to the clock or a live audience. No show biz. The fact that creationists, of all stripes, avoid written debates really demonstrates whom the cowards really are.

I have been trying to get one of these fellows into a formal written debate for years now. So far, no takers.

Interestingly, in Dover Pennsylvania, they had their chance to demonstrate that there is science in their science, before a conservative judge, and with many of their major players testifying. Behe went down in flames. ID went down in flames. In my view, the public debate has already happened and ID lost. They could not demonstrate that their science was anything more than religion dressed up with scientific lingo acting as a smoke screen to cover up what ID is really about.

Hell, I have seen much more convincing pseudo-science than what they have to offer. (You know, the “miracle thaw tray” really does speed the defrosting of meat even if the claim that it is a “space age technology” or the need to own one is ridiculous. Any thick pan will do.)

 

[Wowbagger]

T'ai Chi,
Please answer the question I posed in post #161:

How does the hypothesis of ID suggest areas of further study of Junk DNA?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Live debates are a waste of time. The ID and creationist crowd have some very good speakers who make points using debating tactics that find a way around dealing with actual science. By contrast, the person debating evolution, while correct, often presents as much less entertaining. Duan Gish was something of an artist at debating for creationism. He used what is now called the “Gish Gallop” by throwing out so much information (baloney) at one time that his opponent had to ignore most of it to trash even a small part of it.

Live debates go to the best debater and not necessarily to the person who is right. It’s as simple as that.

Now I have no doubt that Richard Dawkins could handle a live debate. He is not easily rattled. But in the case of ID there is nothing to debate. So why show up?

I don’t think ID even rises to the level of scientific hypothesis, since it is not testable, which is a requirement if a hypothesis if it is to move along the path to becoming a theory. They can dress it up with scientific lingo all they want to and it is still only an “argument from incredulity”. Since when has a logical fallacy risen to the level of anything even remotely scientific?

That said, creationists are loath to get into formal written debates. They avoid them like they avoid the science that they dismiss. Now, a formal written debate would truly level the playing field because any assertion could be thoughtfully rebutted. No playing to the clock or a live audience. No show biz. The fact that creationists, of all stripes, avoid written debates really demonstrates whom the cowards really are.

I have been trying to get one of these fellows into a formal written debate for years now. So far, no takers.

Interestingly, in Dover Pennsylvania, they had their chance to demonstrate that there is science in their science, before a conservative judge, and with many of their major players testifying. Behe went down in flames. ID went down in flames. In my view, the public debate has already happened and ID lost. They could not demonstrate that their science was anything more than religion dressed up with scientific lingo acting as a smoke screen to cover up what ID is really about.

Hell, I have seen much more convincing pseudo-science than what they have to offer. (You know, the “miracle thaw tray” really does speed the defrosting of meat even if the claim that it is a “space age technology” or the need to own one is ridiculous. Any thick pan will do.)

Well said.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Intellectually honest proponents of Darwinian evolution can admit that there will always be biological phenomena that are difficult to explain through evolution, simply because there are so many phenomena and in such variety. ID people will always have these unexplained phenomena to point to with their God (or alien) of the Gaps approach. How do we move forward?

First we can try taking ID seriously as a science, with testable claims. The testable claim that ID makes is that the evolution of phenomenon X can not be explained without invoking the hand of a higher power. For most phenomena it's trivial or even funny - say with the peelability of the domesticated banana. For others it's an exercise in creative thinking - thanks for the link on the bombardier beetle. For others it leads to greater knowledge of biochemistry, as with the flagellum (and I get the feeling that someone has brought up RNA based regulation of amino acid production in Prokaryotes). So taking them at their word can be useful. In fact, if we assume that they are making testable claims we pretty much end up doing what we would do anyway. When we see something without an obvious naturalistic explanation, we can't help but investigate. However, there will always be some as of yet unexplained phenomena for ID proponents to point to.

Or we can act as if prominent proponents of ID are power hungry and intellectually dishonest and not interested in the truth, as mountains of evidence show. In this case we should ridicule their theory by pointing out it's unintentional corollaries. We can ask why there are so many incredibly inefficient designs in nature that the guiding hand chose. Also, relay, things like asking a Christian proponent of ID what point god had in making the prostate so sensitive as a sexual organ would be fun.

I prefer the former solution though, as it shows the 90% of people who are duped into believing ID theory (the other 10% being those with the political interest in spreading it) that there are creative ways of exploring the universe without invoking higher powers. This approach would show that we aren't a bunch of know it alls, and that the intellectual culture of science is one of inclusion for people genuinely interested in expanding human knowledge. It wouldn't be easy. Many people have spent hundreds of hours in their places of worship undergoing indoctrination, but given that the facts are on our side it's certainly possible. These people aren't zombies.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Dawkins has debated creationists in the past, there's the famous 1986 Oxford Union Debate between evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (Professor of Biology, University of Sussex) and creationists A. E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews. If anyone knows where I can hear it that would be awesome

The irony is that some months back T'ai Chi started a thread called "A Question For Richard Dawkins" or something like that. When it was suggested that he might post his query on the Richard Dawkins site forum in the hopes that the man himself might respond he chose to ignore the suggestion. He was prodded to re-post his question there several times more and yet never did so.

Clearly T'ai fears Dawkins.

I guess Sylvia Browne is "afraid" of Randi.

That's not such a good example as Browne clearly IS afraid of Randi.

 

[articulett]

These people aren't zombies.

T'ai might be. Over 10,000 posts and nary a clue--as insulting as ever and time-wasting to boot. I don't think any creationist who has posted here has altered the "faith" one bit. I think their questions and articles of "interest" are dishonest at best. They are repeatedly rude to those who are nice and carefully take the time to explain the facts to them. And they are arrogant. Of course, others may peruse the articles and learn something, so it may not be a complete waste of time. It's just so sure that they have something to teach and an absolute inability to understand that they may also have something to learn.

T'ai doesn't care about the responses. He just wants to spread the lie that scientists are "afraid" of creationists. He's delusional. Delusions are very hard to change--that's why it's fun to prod the delusional when they present themselves repeatedly and arrogantly on a skeptics forum. That's called, maximizing entertainment value. I don't know how long that you've been engaging them...but it can get old--and old creationists cannot learn new science. They aren't even really interested in learning it--they seem to have an aversion even. At least that's what the evidence indicates from my many experiences. I prefer to use them for stress relief myself. (Besides, it helps me be nice and gentle to the daily creationists I encounter who aren't displaying their ignorance in such an arrogant fashion...I agree, some can learn.) T'ai, however, is purposefully ignorant and ignores and dismisses all links and information that could help him mitigate his deficiencies.

 

[Bob Klase]

I think your preference is exactly the wrong way to handle it.

First we can try taking ID seriously as a science, with testable claims.

First, ID must make testable claims. Taking ID seriously as a science is exactly what IDers are fighting for. The reason it's a tough fight is that ID is NOT a science. Read the Dover decision- they put forward their best testimony and it failed.

The testable claim that ID makes is that the evolution of phenomenon X can not be explained without invoking the hand of a higher power.

There are a lot of things that science doesn't know. Saying "you don't know, therefore goddit" is not a testable claim about ID any more than it's a testable claim about gravity? Gravity can not be explained without invoking a higher power- therefore god did it (I was really tempted to say 'therefore, god sucks').

So taking them at their word can be useful.

Taking them at their word is not science.

In fact, if we assume that they are making testable claims

Why would we make an assumption like that any more than we'd assume that astrology or any pseudo-science is making testable claims. The claim is either testable or it isn't- an untestable claim doesn't become testable just because we decide to assume that it is.

we pretty much end up doing what we would do anyway.

Like teaching ID in science class for example? If we assume that ID is a serious science making testable claims, then wouldn't it make sense to teach it in science class?

When we see something without an obvious naturalistic explanation, we can't help but investigate.

Exactly- that's called science.

However, there will always be some as of yet unexplained phenomena for ID proponents to point to.

Maybe. That doesn't make ID science.

Or we can act as if prominent proponents of ID are power hungry and intellectually dishonest and not interested in the truth, as mountains of evidence show.

If there's a better way, it wasn't included in your earlier suggestions.

I prefer the former solution though, as it shows the 90% of people who are duped into believing ID theory (the other 10% being those with the political interest in spreading it) that there are creative ways of exploring the universe without invoking higher powers. This approach would show that we aren't a bunch of know it alls, and that the intellectual culture of science is one of inclusion for people genuinely interested in expanding human knowledge.

Not to mention it would help get ID included in science classes. Then we can start arguing with them about how many of the research dollars being spent on science (little things like trying to cure cancer perhaps) should be diverted for a 'scientific' study of ID.

 

[articulett]

Dawkins has debated creationists in the past, there's the famous 1986 Oxford Union Debate between evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (Professor of Biology, University of Sussex) and creationists A. E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews. If anyone knows where I can hear it that would be awesome





Clearly T'ai fears Dawkins.





That's not such a good example as Browne clearly IS afraid of Randi.

oh... yeah... you're right. I don't know what I was thinking. Maybe I meant to say that Dawkins being afraid of creationists is like Randi being afraid of Sylvia.

Here's the debate: http://richarddawkins.net/article,721,n,n

In fact, here is a slew of them: http://bevets.com/evolutionav.htm

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Thank you Bob Klase for a shining example of how to use the quote function to take things out of context. May it serve as an example to all of how to parse an unorthodoxed or nuanced argument into fragments that carry little of the meaning found in the original structure.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Thank you Bob Klase for a shining example of how to use the quote function to take things out of context.

Actually, he just addressed your post, point by point. Most of us can read your original post, then look at his reply. Bob just illustrated how dangerously stupid it would be to even entertain the notion that creationism is scientific.

 

[neon]

I looked at that creationist comic. Seriously, I want to cry now.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Somebody explain to me how "This trait can not have arisen through Darwinian evolution" is not a testable claim. It seems to me that it is, as any possible proposed biological lineage that gives rise to the trait in question would count as disproof.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Somebody explain to me how "This trait can not have arisen through Darwinian evolution" is not a testable claim. It seems to me that it is, as any possible proposed biological lineage that gives rise to the trait in question would count as disproof.

Not to the creationists. They would simply say that god made it happen and that the biological lineage is just re-use of an intelligent design.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

thaiboxerken, I'll go by what they say they say, not by what you say they will say.

 

[thaiboxerken]

thaiboxerken, I'll go by what they say they say, not by what you say they will say.

That's the type of thing that they say. You can go by what they say, but it's the same as I've posted about them. We could wager on it. Oh, and how is showing them the facts about evolution testing THEIR claims? All you're doing is what's been done many times over, showing that their claims have no basis in science.

They don't care about science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Somebody explain to me how "This trait can not have arisen through Darwinian evolution" is not a testable claim. It seems to me that it is, as any possible proposed biological lineage that gives rise to the trait in question would count as disproof.

Because in the example you pose, you cannot prove the negative.

Prove the hypothesis, there is no life anywhere in the Universe except on Earth.

But in the case you are specifically claiming, no hypothesis claiming evolution cannot explain X has ever been even remotely validated. We are soooo past that nonsense in the science of genetics. It is time for you evolution denialists to read a bit more current research and move on.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

There are people who will for political reasons or psychological makeup never turn against ID as a theory. The would go so far as to say that they didn't say what they clearly said, change the basis for their arguments after the fact, etc. The same can be said of some who believe in Darwinian evolution. These people don't matter, as they aren't involved in anything we could call science. What matters are people on the ground testing theories. What matters is the process, the rational inquiry, the openness of discussion, attempts at synthesis of disparate ideas, etc. etc. In a nutshell, the human element. If I were a rational person who happened to have heard the theories of ID and not have heard the counterarguements, it would take some doing to make me change my mind. Thats GOOD. Nobody is supposed to just change their mind when they hear "well, you are wrong, and you've been indoctrinated, and the people who told you what you believe are slimy like worms" It will take some doing to convince a large number of fundamentally rational people that naturalistic explanations might just explain everything, and that they are the only avenues of inquiry that we can pursue anyway. It's hard, very hard. It's worth doing.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about what I meant by saying they have testable claims, so I'll give an example. It was claimed by ID proponents that there was no way that a bombadier beetle could have evolved. Since then possible routs of Darwinian evolution to the modern bombadier beetle have been proposed. Therefore, the claim was falsified. It has nothing to do with proving a negative. Also, there need be no wes or yous in the study of cases challenging to evolution. It's interesting as an avenue for research for people of either position.