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

[yoda89]

I will more than wiling to discuss this

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

While I agree that part of this is explained by the first response in your thread, I'd add that (as Sunstone said) these claims have been addressed in full many times by people (like Painted Wolf) who do not mock, insult, attack, etc., but attempt to explain (with a patience and respectful response I wish I delivered far more often than I do). Too frequently, however, creationists are using the arguments they have been supplied by those like Behe who have at least the background knowledge necessary to put forward such arguments. Those who reference Behe, on the other hand, frequently do not have the background to understand what Behe himself writes in more technical contexts.

Dembski and Ruse, both (in)famous for their respective positions on creationism/ID (one an ardent proponent, the other an ardent critic) did precisely what you ask about: they got together and produced a volume filled with arguments from both sides that they edited together (it includes both a paper by Behe and responses). The problem is that those like Miller who respond to Behe's "irreducible complexity" either have to greatly simplify or present arguments that aren't convincing to believers. Complexity itself has several definitions, and Behe's is non-standard. That complex structures form naturally, and that non-living systems self-organize, is a known fact. Yet the physics and mathematics describing such self-organization are far from trivial, and I've yet to meet a creationist who's cited Behe and is prepared to discuss many-body problems that are unsolvable due to their complexity yet are problems which deal with things like rocks, sand, crystals, and solids in general. As Miller puts it, those who cite Behe rely upon "arguments from personal incredulity". Rarely do they have the background to understand Behe himself when he is addressing his peers.

it turns out the "Creationist science" actually is not as easy to debunk as they thought?

I've participated, as you may know, in a great many threads here on mythicism (the view that Jesus never existed). For the most part, this involves trying to show those who don't have the background or context to understand the arguments they steal from others that these arguments fail. This is almost always an exercise in futility because
1) the mythicists are anything but the rational, unbiased individuals they present themselves as and
2) they are relying on argument that address a level of detail which requires a great amount of background information they do not possess.

The same is true of those who cite Dembski, Behe, Collins, and even Davies on issues relating to design and/or creationism. If one speaks of irreducible complexity, but is unable to understand the complexity metrics used in general or the complexity present in non-living systems let alone the ways in which configuration spaces create the capacity for "irreducibly complex" components of living systems to be created simply by evolutionary processes, then how can "creationist arguments" be addressed?

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.

In the professional world, unfortunately, the bulk of the works are inaccessible to most. Subscription to a single journal for a single year can cost as much as a book or more, and the necessary subscriptions in this case are only possible for the very wealthy or for institutions like universities. Which means that you are unlikely to have come across most of the "professional" addresses to Behe's arguments.

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?

Because the Bayesian conspiracy required it.

 

[LuisDantas]

We at RF see too much presumption that the other side in an argument is being dishonest, as though they can see the truth in our side, but knowingly deny it. I've been accused of it meself at times. Sometimes it's gussied up as "intellectual dishonesty", but it's still not acknowledging that the other side can sincerely believe incredible things, & still deserve civil conversation.

That certainly happens, and often too.

Still, Creationism (or shall I say, what is perhaps unfortunately usually meant as Creationism) is a special case. It is just too asymetric. Far too much of its expression is - and, in fact, must[/b] be - based on utterly inadvisable stances if serious and respectable discussion is to be attained.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

There's no place for personal attacks in an intelligent debate. The problem is, this happens on both sides, and for a variety of reasons. But what I see mostly is creationists ignoring all the science of evolution, attacking it as if it will make it go away, but offer no scientific evidence of their own to try to back up creationism. If one wants to present creationism as science and not just religion, you can't use religious debate tactics, but scientific ones. This is something most creationists continue to ignore. They don't want to make creationism something studied by science, but something accepted as science without any scientific backing, for the sole reason of propagating their religion. This is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I will more than wiling to discuss this

Isn't that a contradiction????

 

[Revoltingest]

Still, Creationism (or shall I say, what is perhaps unfortunately usually meant as Creationism) is a special case. It is just too asymetric. Far too much of its expression is - and, in fact, must[/b] be - based on utterly inadvisable stances if serious and respectable discussion is to be attained.

Does being a special case justify incivility?
Does incivility accomplish anything?
Do the rules allow for making a special case for incivility?
Does this lead to other special cases of insults being acceptable, eg, capitalist v socialist, feminist v non-feminist, gun nuts vs grabbers?

And once again, just what positive result is yielded by incivility towards those deemed to deserve it?

 

[McBell]

Now if you want to talk about intellectual honesty, then let's have a new section called "Take on the Creationist science pages", where people have to actually address what's being stated and can't just dive straight for the source as if that's all they need to disprove.
.

I am all for your proposed new section.
However, I would add that whatever the creationists present must be actual science...

 

[Revoltingest]

I am all for your proposed new section.
However, I would add that whatever the creationists present must be actual science...

That would be requiring too much of them.
Let'm mix religion & pseudo-science.
It would be our job to address any shortcomings we see.
As long as all make their cases in a civil fashion, that's enuf for me.

 

[Willamena]

Namaste,

For real?

M.V.

Yes, it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does being a special case justify incivility?

No, of course not.

Does incivility accomplish anything?

Well, yes, it often does, as any number of controversial subjects that shouldn't even be controversial in the first place show all too painfully.

Do the rules allow for making a special case for incivility?

Which rules? RF's don't.

But if you are implying that there is too much tolerance for it in the Evo vs Creo area, then I suggest you bring that to Site Feedback. It is something of a personal call, I suppose, and the rather difficult talk conditions of the subject do not help.

Does this lead to other special cases of insults being acceptable, eg, capitalist v socialist, feminist v non-feminist, gun nuts vs grabbers?

You tell me. Does it?

And once again, just what positive result is yielded by incivility towards those deemed to deserve it?

In my personal opinion, there are instance when it is necessary to talk in the language that the other party insists in using. So there is one.

 

[fantome profane]

Dude... Refrring to creationists claims as "comic relief" is a personal attack.

No it is not. And this is perhaps one of the problems with this debate is that no one seems to understand what a personal attack is.

Saying your argument is silly, is not a personal attack.

When a creationist says that the only reason a scientist accepts evolution is because they are afraid to say otherwise, that is a personal attack.

It really is very simple, a personal attack is when you attack the person. When you address their argument it is not a personal attack.

 

[YmirGF]

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?

Well, Shermana, when Creationists actually come up with a good argument, let me know. Thus far I have yet to encounter one that made a lick of sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, yes, it often does, as any number of controversial subjects that shouldn't even be controversial in the first place show all too painfully.

Who is to say which side of the non-real controversy has the intellectual high ground?
If you're looking for such an authority, I volunteer to pronounce judgement, & stand ready to
weigh in on abortion, feminism, religion, creationism, science, gun rights, economics, etc.

But if you are implying that there is too much tolerance for it in the Evo vs Creo area, then I suggest you bring that to Site Feedback.

That's a good idea, but I'm not aware of what is currently going on
with those combatants. Btw, I don't imply it....I state it.

You tell me. Does it?

I regularly see ad hominem posts in those areas. Were this to become
tolerated in one area, there would be effort to standardize it in others.

In my personal opinion, there are instance when it is necessary to talk in the language that the other party insists in using. So there is one.

This doesn't seem to address my question about what positive results there are from incivility towards those deserving it.

 

[yoda89]

Isn't that a contradiction????

Why by God it actually is. I've been fooled for so many years....

 

[Alceste]

Indeed, I have a major problem dealing with those who only want to read the Bible their way and only their way.

Have you looked at the Creationist websites and examined their arguments without simply brushing them off for being Creationist?

The thing is, Shermana, I don't need to understand creationism or examine their arguments because I understand evolution. Evolution is obviously true. Therefore creationism is superfluous. Even if there were any merit to the idea that the world was intentionally created, it still makes absolutely no difference to how the world IS. To understand how the world IS, we need to understand evolution - just as 99% of the world's biologists say.

I've debated enough creationists and read enough of their arguments to know what they're calling "science", and it isn't. How do I know that? Because I also read a lot of science, so I can tell the difference between science and baloney.

I've also debated enough creationists to know they are not returning the favour. I've spent hundreds of hours of my life - hours I can never recover - reading total nonsense on AIG and creation.com, watching Kirk Cameron wave bananas around, listening to Kent Hovind brainwash children, reading absolutely awful books about why everything in the Bible has to be literally true, even reading the Bible! All because religious folks have told me I need to expose myself to that kind of aneurism-inducing stupidity to have an "honest" debate with them. But has a creationist ever followed my advice and cracked open a copy of the Greatest Show on Earth? Not one. Not ever.

If you really understand how a combustion engine works, what are you going to think of somebody who says you can't be sure you're right about how it works unless you first examine all the arguments regarding how Santa's reindeer fly? You're not going to respect them very much, right? Not only because Santa is a fairy tale, but also because they are unable to see that EVEN IF Santa and his reindeer existed and could fly, it would still have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with how an internal combustion engine works. Also, they obviously don't care how it works anyway, they just want to talk about Santa and his magic sleigh.

 

[Alceste]

Did you even read the quote?

A perfect example of what I'm talking about. You just write off the source without looking at what it says. It quotes other studies.

If you can't even address what it even says without going right after the source, that's just a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Why don't you just put a sticky on this section that says "Creationist, don't even bother bringing your Creationist websites to the table, we won't even look at them".

So until that happens, I take it you can't actually debunk what the quote says.

Reading articles about science by people who are not scientists is a waste of time, don't you think? Wouldn't you rather get the information straight from the source? Me, I would, Absolutely. I listen to a radio show called quirks and quarks that has utterly fascinating interviews with working researchers. One thing you'll notice when you start reading or listening to actual scientists, as opposed to editorials by non-scientists, is that what scientists say is often very different to how it is presented by laypeople. Even the science reporting in the news is sketchy in that respect. Journalists writing about science get it wrong, all the time, even when they're trying really hard to be neutral and get it right.

If we know reading "science-y" sounding articles by non-scientists is a total waste of time, of course we're going to check the scientific credentials of whoever you offer as SCIENTIFIC evidence of your hypothesis. And we're not going to waste our time. Why is that a problem?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We just keep seeing the same variations of misrepresentation, dishonesty and plain ignorance keep attempting to have the upper ground over fact and research.

It gets old fast, and takes a lot out of our patience.

In fact, this so-called controversy is far more interesting and substantial as a sociological phenomenom than as anything relating to cosmology, biology or even theology.

This- well said.

Also, funny that, in claiming that "all evolutionists... rely on personal attacks", the thread title commits, more or less... yes, you guessed it; a personal attack...

Ironic...

 

[Alceste]

This- well said.

Also, funny that, in claiming that "all evolutionists... rely on personal attacks", the thread title commits, more or less... you, you guessed it; a personal attack...

Ironic...

Projection is the number one tool in the creationist workshop.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've yet to encounter anyone who doesn't "believe" in evolution who has demonstrated an actual understanding of it. And trying to argue with someone who is willfully ignorant is one of the most fruitless endeavors you can engage in.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Projection is the number one tool in the creationist workshop.

I'm pretty sure nonsense is the number one tool. Projection is way up there though.