Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?

[columbus]

I find myself putting less and less stock in "your experience." If you haven't seen the sorts of things @Jose Fly is referencing in the OP then you probably haven't been in any of the debates on the topics he's addressing. This sort of thing happens every time anyone posits anything as evidence for evolution. Every time. I have never seen a single case where evidence is accepted as such by advocates of YEC, or even just "creationists" who don't believe evolution is compatible with their world view. Ever. If it happened, then I was probably so shocked that my mind repressed the memory in order to protect itself.

FWIW, Jays <ignore> list is legendary. His custom user title is not an ironic comment.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. Having come from a Conservative enough environment to have had an AP Biology teacher say, in regards to the chapter about evolution, "it doesn't make any sense, it's just a theory, and god did it anyways," and skipped it entirely, RF provided for me much knowledge about evolution, and see how all the bits of evidence come together to really make it undeniable. But I'm sure we'll have warp speed travel before anything comes along that comes close to opposing and replacing the theory of evolution via natural selection.
My honest prediction is, the way some Creationist use the phrase "Darwinian evolution" to somehow ideologize a fact, is I do believe in the future we probably will use the phrase "Darwinian Evolution" to describe how life evolved on this planet under these circumstances. Which also implies we'll discover eventually that we are not alone. And while I wouldn't be surprised or shocked to learn there is indeed other intelligent life out there, I would be utterly stunned to learn we are completely alone in the universe.

 

[David T]

One commonality among most of the creationists in this forum is they like to ask for data and evidence for the conclusions of evolutionary biology. If those of us on the science side say something about a specific fossil sequence, genetics, or even common descent as a whole, it’s not unusual for a creationist to respond with something like “Where’s the data”, “Show me the evidence”, or “Where’s the proof”.

The typical response is for several science advocates to provide links to the data, and write up explanations for how it supports the conclusion(s). Now, many of these explanations are extremely well done and thorough. But the problem is, they’re largely a waste of time. I’ll use a recent example to illustrate why…..

In the "Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism" thread, I posted a “question for creationists” from Kathleen Hunt about the horse fossil record. Basically she asked for creationists’ explanation for the fossil data, and wondered if they believe God created all the species independently, while destroying their very similar kin. Deeje responded to that post by asking to for the data behind the horse fossil sequence. Then, ImmortalFlame responded by posting a link to the horse fossil wiki page. And how did Deeje respond? Did she look it over and return with informed comments and questions? Of course not. She ignored it and immediately jumped topics and started ranting about the “Lucy” specimen.

But wait…..didn’t anyone wonder why she didn’t just look up the information herself? All she had to do was Google “horse fossil record” and she would have found all sorts of resources that walked through the topic and supporting data. If she wanted layperson type info, she could have started with the same wiki page ImmortalFlame gave her. Then if she wanted more info on specific specimens, she could have gone to the wiki pages for each specimen. And if she wanted the more detailed scientific coverage of each specimen, all she had to do was go to Google Scholar and search for each specimen’s name.

So, it’s trivially easy to get the information these creationists keep demanding, which leads to an obvious question: If the creationists are truly interested in the data, why don’t they look it up and read through it themselves? Why do they have to ask us to find it for them?

The answer is obvious….they’re not at all interested. They’re not asking in good faith. They’re posing them as “stump the evolutionist” challenges, not questions, because they believe the data doesn’t exist. So when we show it to them, they ignore it and just move on to another one, as Deeje did yesterday.

In sum, my suggestion is to approach these situations a bit differently. When a creationist asks for you to “show the data”, we should start by asking if them why they want to see it. Are they really interested? Will they even look at it? Are they at all open to the possibility that the data exists?

And if they answer in the affirmative to those questions, have them commit to what we would expect the data to be if the evolutionary framework is accurate. Returning to the horse example, ask something like “Do you agree that if equids are the result of millions of years of evolutionary change, we would expect to see in the fossil record a pattern of change within and between species, with specimens exhibiting more modern-type traits as we move forward in time?” Only after they’ve agreed to all that should we be taking the time to look up, cite, and explain the data to them.

is talking to someone about the silliness of perpetual motion machines as if it's a science discussion a waste of time?

 

[dgirl1986]

I would say so. They will argue until they are blue in the face.

 

[siti]

It's a test - see how many times you can respond patiently to the same asinine lack of reasoning ability. I'm currently doing much better than I ever thought I would (notwithstanding the occasional expletive - hope the mods don't get me - do we have mods on RF? Or are the just called staff?)

PS - I just realized I hit 666 posts - there should be some kind of devilish prize for that shouldn't there?

 

[psychoslice]

Providing anything to an creationist is useless, they just don';t want to believe it, their minds are already made up.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's like explaining abogenesis to someone just to find it's completely ignored, and continually returns to evolution.

 

[Princess Susan]

One commonality among most of the creationists in this forum is they like to ask for data and evidence for the conclusions of evolutionary biology. If those of us on the science side say something about a specific fossil sequence, genetics, or even common descent as a whole, it’s not unusual for a creationist to respond with something like “Where’s the data”, “Show me the evidence”, or “Where’s the proof”.

The typical response is for several science advocates to provide links to the data, and write up explanations for how it supports the conclusion(s). Now, many of these explanations are extremely well done and thorough. But the problem is, they’re largely a waste of time. I’ll use a recent example to illustrate why…..

In the "Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism" thread, I posted a “question for creationists” from Kathleen Hunt about the horse fossil record. Basically she asked for creationists’ explanation for the fossil data, and wondered if they believe God created all the species independently, while destroying their very similar kin. Deeje responded to that post by asking to for the data behind the horse fossil sequence. Then, ImmortalFlame responded by posting a link to the horse fossil wiki page. And how did Deeje respond? Did she look it over and return with informed comments and questions? Of course not. She ignored it and immediately jumped topics and started ranting about the “Lucy” specimen.

But wait…..didn’t anyone wonder why she didn’t just look up the information herself? All she had to do was Google “horse fossil record” and she would have found all sorts of resources that walked through the topic and supporting data. If she wanted layperson type info, she could have started with the same wiki page ImmortalFlame gave her. Then if she wanted more info on specific specimens, she could have gone to the wiki pages for each specimen. And if she wanted the more detailed scientific coverage of each specimen, all she had to do was go to Google Scholar and search for each specimen’s name.

So, it’s trivially easy to get the information these creationists keep demanding, which leads to an obvious question: If the creationists are truly interested in the data, why don’t they look it up and read through it themselves? Why do they have to ask us to find it for them?

The answer is obvious….they’re not at all interested. They’re not asking in good faith. They’re posing them as “stump the evolutionist” challenges, not questions, because they believe the data doesn’t exist. So when we show it to them, they ignore it and just move on to another one, as Deeje did yesterday.

In sum, my suggestion is to approach these situations a bit differently. When a creationist asks for you to “show the data”, we should start by asking if them why they want to see it. Are they really interested? Will they even look at it? Are they at all open to the possibility that the data exists?

And if they answer in the affirmative to those questions, have them commit to what we would expect the data to be if the evolutionary framework is accurate. Returning to the horse example, ask something like “Do you agree that if equids are the result of millions of years of evolutionary change, we would expect to see in the fossil record a pattern of change within and between species, with specimens exhibiting more modern-type traits as we move forward in time?” Only after they’ve agreed to all that should we be taking the time to look up, cite, and explain the data to them.

Of course they are not interested. They're only interested in confirming their bias and wanting others to agree.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think what's lost in conversations like this is the fact that responses written on this forum are read by more people than those who are actively part of the conversation...

When you give a detailed response to a creationist (or anyone for that matter) with sources, explanations, videos, and patience, you're reaching a much broader audience than just the one or two individuals that you're purposefully responding to.

For example, this thread currently has only 28 responses - but 260 views. There are many silent readers out there. That's the reason that any reasoned response is not a waste of time.

 

[Polymath257]

Never try to teach a pig to sing.

It wastes your time and annoys the pig.


Now, if I could only hold to that principle in my life......

 

[viole]

One commonality among most of the creationists in this forum is they like to ask for data and evidence for the conclusions of evolutionary biology. If those of us on the science side say something about a specific fossil sequence, genetics, or even common descent as a whole, it’s not unusual for a creationist to respond with something like “Where’s the data”, “Show me the evidence”, or “Where’s the proof”.

The typical response is for several science advocates to provide links to the data, and write up explanations for how it supports the conclusion(s). Now, many of these explanations are extremely well done and thorough. But the problem is, they’re largely a waste of time. I’ll use a recent example to illustrate why…..

In the "Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism" thread, I posted a “question for creationists” from Kathleen Hunt about the horse fossil record. Basically she asked for creationists’ explanation for the fossil data, and wondered if they believe God created all the species independently, while destroying their very similar kin. Deeje responded to that post by asking to for the data behind the horse fossil sequence. Then, ImmortalFlame responded by posting a link to the horse fossil wiki page. And how did Deeje respond? Did she look it over and return with informed comments and questions? Of course not. She ignored it and immediately jumped topics and started ranting about the “Lucy” specimen.

But wait…..didn’t anyone wonder why she didn’t just look up the information herself? All she had to do was Google “horse fossil record” and she would have found all sorts of resources that walked through the topic and supporting data. If she wanted layperson type info, she could have started with the same wiki page ImmortalFlame gave her. Then if she wanted more info on specific specimens, she could have gone to the wiki pages for each specimen. And if she wanted the more detailed scientific coverage of each specimen, all she had to do was go to Google Scholar and search for each specimen’s name.

So, it’s trivially easy to get the information these creationists keep demanding, which leads to an obvious question: If the creationists are truly interested in the data, why don’t they look it up and read through it themselves? Why do they have to ask us to find it for them?

The answer is obvious….they’re not at all interested. They’re not asking in good faith. They’re posing them as “stump the evolutionist” challenges, not questions, because they believe the data doesn’t exist. So when we show it to them, they ignore it and just move on to another one, as Deeje did yesterday.

In sum, my suggestion is to approach these situations a bit differently. When a creationist asks for you to “show the data”, we should start by asking if them why they want to see it. Are they really interested? Will they even look at it? Are they at all open to the possibility that the data exists?

And if they answer in the affirmative to those questions, have them commit to what we would expect the data to be if the evolutionary framework is accurate. Returning to the horse example, ask something like “Do you agree that if equids are the result of millions of years of evolutionary change, we would expect to see in the fossil record a pattern of change within and between species, with specimens exhibiting more modern-type traits as we move forward in time?” Only after they’ve agreed to all that should we be taking the time to look up, cite, and explain the data to them.

Waste of time, definetely.

That is why I think it is better to use alternative arguments like "why do we look like hairless gorillas, then?". Talking about allele frequency in the gene pool will not take you anywhere.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

Waste of time, definetely.

That is why I think it is better to use alternative arguments like "why do we look like hairless gorillas, then?". Talking about allele frequency in the gene pool will not take you anywhere.

Ciao

- viole

If one is actually trying to persuade creationists, I've found that the more effective approach is to focus on the real, root issue......their religious beliefs and the psychological reasons they hold to them regardless of physical reality. And even then, it's quite rare to find a creationist who's willing to even go down that road.

 

[Jose Fly]

No. Having come from a Conservative enough environment to have had an AP Biology teacher say, in regards to the chapter about evolution, "it doesn't make any sense, it's just a theory, and god did it anyways," and skipped it entirely, RF provided for me much knowledge about evolution, and see how all the bits of evidence come together to really make it undeniable. But I'm sure we'll have warp speed travel before anything comes along that comes close to opposing and replacing the theory of evolution via natural selection.
My honest prediction is, the way some Creationist use the phrase "Darwinian evolution" to somehow ideologize a fact, is I do believe in the future we probably will use the phrase "Darwinian Evolution" to describe how life evolved on this planet under these circumstances. Which also implies we'll discover eventually that we are not alone. And while I wouldn't be surprised or shocked to learn there is indeed other intelligent life out there, I would be utterly stunned to learn we are completely alone in the universe.

Maybe I'm remembering someone else, but I thought you were a biologist. I ask because it seems like above you're saying that RF is where you got much of your info on evolutionary biology.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's a test - see how many times you can respond patiently to the same asinine lack of reasoning ability. I'm currently doing much better than I ever thought I would (notwithstanding the occasional expletive - hope the mods don't get me - do we have mods on RF? Or are the just called staff?)

So what's the reward if you pass the test?

PS - I just realized I hit 666 posts - there should be some kind of devilish prize for that shouldn't there?

Your pentagram rub-on tattoo will arrive in the mail shortly.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think what's lost in conversations like this is the fact that responses written on this forum are read by more people than those who are actively part of the conversation...

When you give a detailed response to a creationist (or anyone for that matter) with sources, explanations, videos, and patience, you're reaching a much broader audience than just the one or two individuals that you're purposefully responding to.

For example, this thread currently has only 28 responses - but 260 views. There are many silent readers out there. That's the reason that any reasoned response is not a waste of time.

Yeah, I understand the "appeal to lurkers" POV, but I'm just not sure it's all that consequential. I wonder how many of those 260 views are from people who are already participating in the thread and are just refreshing, editing posts, checking for updates, etc.

But I do agree that if you're primary objective is to reach these lurkers rather than to have any effect on the creationist you're talking to, then it is worth doing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One commonality among most of the creationists in this forum is they like to ask for data and evidence for the conclusions of evolutionary biology. If those of us on the science side say something about a specific fossil sequence, genetics, or even common descent as a whole, it’s not unusual for a creationist to respond with something like “Where’s the data”, “Show me the evidence”, or “Where’s the proof”.

The typical response is for several science advocates to provide links to the data, and write up explanations for how it supports the conclusion(s). Now, many of these explanations are extremely well done and thorough. But the problem is, they’re largely a waste of time. I’ll use a recent example to illustrate why…..

In the "Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism" thread, I posted a “question for creationists” from Kathleen Hunt about the horse fossil record. Basically she asked for creationists’ explanation for the fossil data, and wondered if they believe God created all the species independently, while destroying their very similar kin. Deeje responded to that post by asking to for the data behind the horse fossil sequence. Then, ImmortalFlame responded by posting a link to the horse fossil wiki page. And how did Deeje respond? Did she look it over and return with informed comments and questions? Of course not. She ignored it and immediately jumped topics and started ranting about the “Lucy” specimen.

But wait…..didn’t anyone wonder why she didn’t just look up the information herself? All she had to do was Google “horse fossil record” and she would have found all sorts of resources that walked through the topic and supporting data. If she wanted layperson type info, she could have started with the same wiki page ImmortalFlame gave her. Then if she wanted more info on specific specimens, she could have gone to the wiki pages for each specimen. And if she wanted the more detailed scientific coverage of each specimen, all she had to do was go to Google Scholar and search for each specimen’s name.

So, it’s trivially easy to get the information these creationists keep demanding, which leads to an obvious question: If the creationists are truly interested in the data, why don’t they look it up and read through it themselves? Why do they have to ask us to find it for them?

The answer is obvious….they’re not at all interested. They’re not asking in good faith. They’re posing them as “stump the evolutionist” challenges, not questions, because they believe the data doesn’t exist. So when we show it to them, they ignore it and just move on to another one, as Deeje did yesterday.

In sum, my suggestion is to approach these situations a bit differently. When a creationist asks for you to “show the data”, we should start by asking if them why they want to see it. Are they really interested? Will they even look at it? Are they at all open to the possibility that the data exists?

And if they answer in the affirmative to those questions, have them commit to what we would expect the data to be if the evolutionary framework is accurate. Returning to the horse example, ask something like “Do you agree that if equids are the result of millions of years of evolutionary change, we would expect to see in the fossil record a pattern of change within and between species, with specimens exhibiting more modern-type traits as we move forward in time?” Only after they’ve agreed to all that should we be taking the time to look up, cite, and explain the data to them.

I send the creationist to Google as a show of good faith. Find a few articles on science sites, read them, and return with any questions or issues you wish to discuss. Here's a relatively recent example of that: The Big Bang and Evolution

I'll let you guess how many times that has happened, or if it happened in that case.

Still, I will answer some of those questions, but with no expectation that the creationist will benefit or even read the answer. I benefit from the research and from crafting the answer, and hopefully, a few others who don't think by faith will benefit as well.

But if your purpose is to go fetch evidence for creationists, well, why bother? They didn't get to their present position using evidence, generally have little experience evaluating it or employing critical thinking skills, and can't be budged from a faith based position by evidence.

You are correct: It's a pretense that they are otherwise, or that they share our values about critical thought applied to evidence.. You fetch it, and they reject it out of hand using words like "supposition" and "never been observed."

Enough of that. Make them jump the first hurdle as a sign of sincerity.

 

[siti]

So what's the reward if you pass the test?

Your pentagram rub-on tattoo will arrive in the mail shortly.

I think you just answered your own question!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do sympathize with the appeal to lurkers argument, but I'm just not convinced that it's a significant enough factor to justify spending lots of time looking up, posting, and explaining the science of evolutionary biology to a group of people who've already decided that they won't accept any of it.

And I'm someone who used to spend lots of time doing that.

I just did that in response to a post about "kinds" and Darwin's finches on another thread. I am now in a position to tell you that finches comprise a biological family with three suborders and many dozens of genera and species. Interested?

Virtually everything I know about human evolution comes from this process, and all within the last three years. The creationists questions were the impetus, but I never expected them to get anything out of it. I do it for me and those that are like me. I do it for you, and you do it for me. The creationists don't generally care about such things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you being dishonest or simply confused. Nowhere have I said that I have not seen what you describe. What I have said is that I have not seen it to be a "commonality among most of the creationists in this forum" from people not acting in good faith. You seem to be demonstrating the very characteristic that you've chosen to rail against.

I agree with Jose. Demanding evidence that the creationist has no interest in is pretty much de rigueur for the creationist. It's a game they play to pose as reasonable people that think like empirical rational skeptics. They don't. They have no interest in, use for, or abililty to evaluate that which they demand.

Of course, this is only demanded of others. For themselves, faith will do.

Is anybody still fooled or confused by that tactic?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree with Jose. Demanding evidence that the creationist has no interest in is pretty much de rigueur for the creationist.

Those scurvy dogs!