Why do Evolutionists not like to actually debate Evolution and rely on personal attacks?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Roses are roses.

Nope. Roses are red. Violets are blue. They told me this, so it must be true.

All these have arrived in four billion years. I can't believe that.

What would your time frame be and why? What is it about evolutionary processes that are believed today by virtually all those who work in relevant fields that you cannot believe made possible the species we see?

Living systems are complex systems. A common feature (usually a defining one) is robustness against phase changes (or, in layperson's terms, they are able robust against a relatively large/great amount of external influences and thus capable of adapting without changing qualitatively). However, complex systems do not exist in a vacuum. The climate is a complex system. It can withstand drastic emissions from things like volcanoes and not change the way mainstream climate scientists agree that the climate is changing today.

Do you know what the most successful, most abundant, longest surviving, and most adaptive organism on this planet is? Stuff like bacteria. More complex systems are robust only in a relative sense. Thus adaptive traits in some environment may remain adaptive enough to withstand a great many environmental changes. But environments/ecosystems are also complex systems. And they too can be influenced by everything from solar magnetic flux to beavers (the animal, not gratuitous shots in films). Which means that when an ecosystem undergoes a phase change, the entire set of adaptive traits of living system can quickly and utterly spell its demise and the adaption of its offspring or of another's. The fact that the Earth is littered with ecosystems that have complex internal dynamics influencing and caused by the living systems in these ecosystems, as well as being influenced by various types of solar flux, cloud cover, invading animal/plant/viri (viruses) systems, etc., means that we can have long periods of equilibrium in region A, and massive successive changes in region B forcing non-trivial changes, all at the same time.

The thing which powers all life on this earth is the Sun. Life is a violation of general physics as it is never in equilibrium and must constantly consume some form of energy in order to remain so. That means that all life is constantly out of balance and requiring ways to remain out of balance without entering into chaos. It also means that the planet itself must do so in ways that allow species to exist. But we know it hasn't always done that. There have been at least 5 massive extinctions, one which wiped out almost all life on this planet. The introduction of oxygen as more than a trace atmospheric gas occurred after life. And living systems as well as ecosystems shifted to adapt such that now the loss of this level of oxygen would kill of most of the species on this planet, just as has happened before.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have a suspicion that Evolution is one of the most researched sciences simply because of all this "controversy" the last 150 years. It's also one of the few sciences that rely and intersect with almost all other sciences. Geology, ecology, math, computer science, even sociology and economics, all overlap with how evolution works in not only the biological sense, but on a "game theory" level of things. Even science itself evolves based on "survival of the best ideas."

Not exactly. Or rather, the use of evolutionary processes in computer science and mathematics (which are related, and game theory is a field of mathematics) is mostly unrelated to evolutionary theories. Gene expression algorithms, cellular automata, genetic algorithms, fitness functions, etc., were all borrowed from the life sciences (especially the computational branches), but are mostly used in "soft computing" or any number of other computer sciences where procedural, step-by-step, "classical algorithmic" approaches won't cut it. Using genetic algorithms to solve a traveling salesman problem, knapsack problem, etc., and the work that goes into developing such models/algorithms for what are originally based off of computational models in the life sciences are not due to controversy. It's because many problems aren't prone to precise conclusions and many have no known general solution that would make the classical algorithmic approach possible. However, living systems are everything that computers are not: they adapt, they optimize routinely, they display collective intelligence, etc. So the main impetus behind a great deal of findings in the life sciences is money, results, both, and/or something similar.

 

[Zen Sensei]

It seems in Evolution debates, whenever the Creationist posts anything, rather than actually discussing the claims, those on the TOE side generally just make snide comments, attempt to insult the intelligence, ignore the actual counter-argument, double down on the same point the Creationist/IDer is arguing against without defending against the claims, dismisses them and handwaves them or ignore the rebuttal to their own counter-arguments, and then get silent when they agree to address creationist-science claims and it turns out the "Creationist science" actually is not as easy to debunk as they thought? Is there even any point in a Creationist stepping into the ring if there's not going to be any serious debate? What about this subject causes those on the Evolution side to more often than not act so immaturely?

It seems to be a general trend. Even in the professional world, attacks on Behe's works are basically all ad hominem and rarely if ever an attempt to debunk the claims of science involved. The argument that "There's no science to debunk" is in itself yet another smear that's ultimately proof that they're not even capable of addressing what they want to smear.

Are evolutionists not interested in actual debate on this subject?

Are evolutionists simply looking to have a good bashing time without any of that pesky debate involved?

Are evolutionists simply content to go by an appeal to authority of the provenly-overwhelmingly-atheist-majority as if that alone settles all evolution debates?

Why even have sections on debates between evolutionists and creationists if evolutionists aren't remotely interested in mature, solid discussions and simply want to make it attack fests?

Is the basis of the evolutionist point of view simply to try to ridicule the Creationist point in hopes of relieving themselves of the actual need to debaet their claims, as if they can just say "Oh Creation.com is all lies" and that's that?

Is this an honest method of debate? Or is this simply a tell-tale evidence of total intellectual dishonesty, vitriol-based tactics and laziness?

Evolutionist do not want to give creationist the credibility to debate evolutionist because creationism is not science. It's does not contain any worthy science issue to debate with.

 

[Zen Sensei]

So basically, your argument now is that all Creationist arguments are wrong no matter what, and there's no need to debate them, no need to even have a Creationist vs Evolution forum, because they're already wrong, and that Creationists cannot be respectful no matter what, even if they present their arguments in a mature and non-condescending way, because they don't respect "actual knowledge" (whatever that means). No need to actually humor them by addressing their claims, links, and such, they're just automatically wrong because they refuse to acknowledge "real knowledge". Gotcha.

Essentially you're saying that a Creationist cannot be rational and respect knowledge. Do Creationists get to say the same thing about the Evolutionists here or do such blatantly insulting characterizations only get allowed one way? Do I get to be just as brutally honest as well?

You're providing a lot of fuel for my professional Psychological evaluation of Evolutionists, I thank you for that.

Thank you for totally exemplifying the attitude I'm trying to discuss here.

Just do the right thing, and change the title of this subforum to "Creationist Bashing Forum: We don't want Creationist arguments here" and be done with it.

If you have legitimate science issues outside your holy book arguments, perhaps some evolutionist may deem it worth while for serious discussion. Otherwise they will just dismiss it as not worthy of consideration and just laugh at your silly face. It's simply that bad.

 

[Vishvavajra]

All creationist/ID arguments against evolution are, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, based on strawmen or misunderstandings of evolution.

Every. Single. One.

This is really the heart of the issue. I have yet to see a single creationist argument that came from a position of actual understanding of evolutionary theory. Creationists' only knowledge of the subject comes from the writings of other creationists, which means that a lot of the same misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications get cycled around again and again, as people just repeat what they've heard other people say while refusing to educate themselves on the science first. They offer up lots of "evidence" that, if you actually follow it back to its source, is invariably baseless. Much of it is on the level of urban legend. Much of it is couched in terms that the scientific community doesn't use or recognize, so there's no way to actually interact with it on a meaningful level. Some of it is just plain made up and passed off as fact, apparently in the belief that that sort of thing is OK as long as it's for a good cause.

And the same canards just keep coming up over and over again. I'll grant that trying to undermine half of modern science is a difficult task, to put it mildly, but one really would expect people to at least have a deep knowledge of the thing they're debating about.

Not to mention the background assumption- which is itself completely erroneous- that this is an EITHER, OR proposition; either evolution is true, or ID is. If evolution is false, ID is true, by default as it were.

Thus, they think that arguments against (strawmen of) evolutionary theory count as arguments FOR ID/creationism; but since this is NOT an either, or situation, this is simply false. If evolution turns out to be false, it is not the case that ID becomes the default position- rather, we're left with NO theory, and are back to the drawing board. (especially since ID isn't even a viable option, given that it is not a well-formed scientific hypothesis to begin with)

Well, yes and no. The theory of evolution is shorthand for evolution by natural selection, which isn't really compatible with any idea of design that people would recognize as such. The whole point is that it explains genetic changes over time without the need for supernatural intervention. And if something is explained well enough without appealing to additional factors, then one shouldn't posit those factors. And that's not even getting into the question of why scientists would posit supernatural phenomena when systematic observation of natural phenomena has give us no reason to do so.

As for going back to the drawing board, it's worse than that. The entirety of modern biological and medical sciences are built around this theory. Ditching it, as some would have us do, would set us back 200 years. It's hard to even imagine what the human cost would be. And all because some scriptural literalists thought that ancient myth ought to trump science in explaining natural phenomena, which constitutes a failure to appreciate the proper role of scripture and religion to begin with. Far from defending their religious tradition, they are just making it look daft and outdated, which is hardly respectful. The God of the Gaps is not the future of religion; that's a losing battle to begin with, and nothing will spell the death of religion faster than people insisting on using God as a placeholder for human ignorance.

 

[Sapiens]

It seems in Evolution debates, whenever the Creationist posts anything, rather than actually discussing the claims, those on the TOE side generally just make snide comments, attempt to insult the intelligence, ignore the actual counter-argument, double down on the same point the Creationist/IDer is arguing against without defending against the claims, dismisses them and handwaves them or ignore the rebuttal to their own counter-arguments, and then get silent when they agree to address creationist-science claims and it turns out the "Creationist science" actually is not as easy to debunk as they thought? Is there even any point in a Creationist stepping into the ring if there's not going to be any serious debate? What about this subject causes those on the Evolution side to more often than not act so immaturely?

It seems to be a general trend. Even in the professional world, attacks on Behe's works are basically all ad hominem and rarely if ever an attempt to debunk the claims of science involved. The argument that "There's no science to debunk" is in itself yet another smear that's ultimately proof that they're not even capable of addressing what they want to smear.

Are evolutionists not interested in actual debate on this subject?

Are evolutionists simply looking to have a good bashing time without any of that pesky debate involved?

Are evolutionists simply content to go by an appeal to authority of the provenly-overwhelmingly-atheist-majority as if that alone settles all evolution debates?

Why even have sections on debates between evolutionists and creationists if evolutionists aren't remotely interested in mature, solid discussions and simply want to make it attack fests?

Is the basis of the evolutionist point of view simply to try to ridicule the Creationist point in hopes of relieving themselves of the actual need to debaet their claims, as if they can just say "Oh Creation.com is all lies" and that's that?

Is this an honest method of debate? Or is this simply a tell-tale evidence of total intellectual dishonesty, vitriol-based tactics and laziness?

It's just our way of trying to find out if you still beat your wife.

 

[Bunyip]

Why do we dislike debating evolution? Because that debate stopped being rational more than a century ago. Any legitimate debate was over in the mid 19th century.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I'll tell you what when the theist actually says something correct about the actual theory then we can have a debate.

Until then there is no debate, there are only efforts to educate the theist which are a complete waste of time.

 

[shawn001]

And this is what I'm talking about Comrade, the Creationists would like to disagree about this "misrepresenting" and "ignoring basic facts" concept. Do you think Michael Behe is blatantly ignorant and misrepresents things?

Basically, it boils down to, "If they disagree with us, they are ignorant or misrepresenting facts".

Granted, there are Creationists who are ignorant and misrepresent facts.

But do you admit that many Evolutionists are blatantly ignorant and misrepresent facts? Or does it only go one way? From my observations, most people who feel the urge to participate against Creationism don't have more than a 6th grade science education.

But if you're saying that the entire spectrum of Creationist arguments from those who actually understand the arguments are the same, that's where the problem is.

But otherwise, we're mainly looking at an attempt to justify vitriol and personal attacks from those who even bother entering the rings.

You keep mentioning Behe? So is it ID or creationism?


There is NO evolution that based in ID. You do know where the term ID came from and them lying yes?

Paul Nelson one of the leaders of ID in in his own words.

"Nelson is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. He is frequently cited by opponents of intelligent design as an example of ID's "big tent" strategy in action. He has written about "Life in the Big Tent" in the Christian Research Journal.[4] In an interview for Touchstone Magazine Nelson said that the main challenge facing the ID community was to "develop a full-fledged theory of biological design", and that the lack of such a theory was a "real problem".

Paul Nelson (creationist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the intelligent design trail in Dover.

Paul Nelson, speak for himself.

""Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

There arguement for "irreducible complexity" was shot down, because they showed it didn't happen biologically so the arguement was wrong and backfired on them.

"Do you think Michael Behe is blatantly ignorant and misrepresents things?"

Yes and he was and got caught doing it! Read the court transcript.

Intelligent Design on Trial
Science is "Exhibit A" in a landmark trial on the teaching of evolution.


NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[Musty]

I rarely get involved in debating with creationists any more because it became apparent that it's a waste of time. Creationist rarely, if ever, contribute anything of value to the debate that genuinely brings into question evolutionary theory or even just a part of it.

Normally the creationist has a limited or perverted understanding of evolution that could be remedied through self-education if they choose to do so, or they are plain trolling.

 

[outhouse]

I rarely get involved in debating with creationists any more because it became apparent that it's a waste of time. Creationist rarely, if ever, contribute anything of value to the debate that genuinely brings into question evolutionary theory or even just a part of it.

Normally the creationist has a limited or perverted understanding of evolution that could be remedied through self-education if they choose to do so, or they are plain trolling.

Understood well.

Its why most of us keep posting the same credible links and education over and over.


Its not really about the person your in an exchange with.


It is the lurkers that could be on the fence who read and do not post here yet.

 

[Stevicus]

Understood well.

Its why most of us keep posting the same credible links and education over and over.


Its not really about the person your in an exchange with.


It is the lurkers that could be on the fence who read and do not post here yet.

I'm probably more of a lurker when it comes to the debate over Evolution vs. Creationism, although I'm not really on the fence. But as a non-scientist, my general inclination is to not try to "debate" science.

However, I must admit that I find the passion and zeal (from both sides) to be quite mystifying. At least as far as internet debates go, this is like some kind of epic battle that just never really ends. To address the OP, it is unfortunate that anyone feels the need to resort to personal attacks - although I don't see any side in any debate as being above criticism in that regard.

Why can't Creationists just accept the scientific facts and principles at hand and still say that "God created it"? The Bible isn't very specific about how it was done.

From the Evolution side, I get the sense that there are those who seem to be overestimating the influence and political capital of Creationists. Some have suggested that Creationism is "dangerous," and seem to believe that if they don't do a full court press against Creationists, we'll end up with witch-burnings by the end of the week. Is Creationism really that much of a threat as to trigger so much passion and zeal against it?

If there are those who believe the Earth is flat or the Moon is made of green cheese, I don't personally feel threatened by that. Of course, I don't really see that much public debate over that, but Evolution vs. Creationism seems to be in a class all by itself.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Until then there is no debate, there are only efforts to educate the theist which are a complete waste of time.

Because of their attachment to a belief in God some theists find evolution quite threatening and don't really want to accept it or understand it. More sophisticated theists tend to accept the validity of evolution and argue that God was still behind it in some way, or maybe kicked the whole thing off at some point.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is Creationism really that much of a threat as to trigger so much passion and zeal against it?

Yes. When less than half of Americas believe that evolution happened we are in big trouble. If we are to change this we need to make sure that our children are properly educated and there has been new and powerful drives to usurp science in the classrooms in America.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes. When less than half of Americas believe that evolution happened we are in big trouble. If we are to change this we need to make sure that our children are properly educated and there has been new and powerful drives to usurp science in the classrooms in America.

I agree completely that the educational system in this country needs to be updated and improved, especially in the areas of math and science. But I would say that's true across the board, not just in the teaching of Evolution. Most schools I'm familiar with actually do teach Evolution. But even when teaching the Three R's, many schools just don't do it very well, which is a problem that has to be addressed.

I also agree that America is in big trouble - for this and a multitude of other reasons. I have to admit I haven't looked at the polls as to how many Americans believe that evolution happened, although I would sense that a lot of people simply don't understand enough of it to able to formulate any real opinion. Of course, a lot of Americans can't even point out their own state on a map. More is the pity.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree completely that the educational system in this country needs to be updated and improved, especially in the areas of math and science. But I would say that's true across the board, not just in the teaching of Evolution. Most schools I'm familiar with actually do teach Evolution. But even when teaching the Three R's, many schools just don't do it very well, which is a problem that has to be addressed.

I also agree that America is in big trouble - for this and a multitude of other reasons. I have to admit I haven't looked at the polls as to how many Americans believe that evolution happened, although I would sense that a lot of people simply don't understand enough of it to able to formulate any real opinion. Of course, a lot of Americans can't even point out their own state on a map. More is the pity.

It is a national standard that students be taught evolution at least within public schools. The problem is that there is a limit to how much they are allowed to go into and in many cases there are undermined and told that there is some form of debate about the authenticity of evolution. The problem is also that there is a threat that individuals want to have it removed from school. I grew up in a home where they still believe that evolution is wrong to this day and wish the education system would remove it from my siblings curriculum.

 

[outhouse]

. Is Creationism really that much of a threat as to trigger so much passion and zeal against it?

For me its a battle against willful ignorance, severe fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Every credible university in the world teaches evolution as fact, because it is.

Creation is outlawed so we don't poison young minds in a science class.

 

[McBell]

Is Creationism really that much of a threat as to trigger so much passion and zeal against it?

Creationism wasn't much of a threat until they tried getting it into science class.

 

[psychoslice]

Myself I find it quite embarrassing to try to reason with the creationist mind, to me its like debating with a child who believes in Santa Clues, or the Easter Bunny.

 

[Stevicus]

Creationism wasn't much of a threat until they tried getting it into science class.

I find that to be rather strange, too. Why is this such a big deal for Creationists?

I even remember a similar thing back when I was in school back in the late 70s. In my 9th grade science class, the teacher was required to read a few passages from the Book of Genesis - something he clearly didn't have his heart in doing, but he had to do it just the same. After he was done (which only took a few minutes), he was like, "Okay, now that we got that out of the way, let's get back to work." I don't think any of the students were brainwashed, and most just took it as a joke and made a bit of mockery of the whole thing.

I would say it's more of an indignity - something a science teacher shouldn't have to do.