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

[johnhanks]

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 etc etc

I've yet to come across a creationist making substantiated claims about evolution. What we see time and again on this part of the forum are bald assertions along the lines of

• macroevolution is impossible because "kinds" have fixed boundaries
• dogs give birth to dogs, cats give birth to cats, and so on
• there are no transitional fossils

Contrary to your opinion above, some of us do try to discuss those claims, putting up for discussion evidence that macroevolution does occur, putting creationists right about what evolutionary theory does and does not involve (it does not, for a start, involve dogs giving birth to non-dogs) and politely asking for elaboration of their assertions, such as what are the criteria for deciding whether a fossil is or is not transitional.
From repeated personal experience I can report that such attempts at debate are rarely productive. Not to put too fine a point on it, the creationists who post here really do not understand much biology and when the discussion (necessarily) becomes technical they tend simply to drop out, only (of course) to throw out the same unsupported assertions in another thread a week or two later.

those on the TOE side generally just make snide comments...

When does a statement of fact become a snide comment? If a creationist claims he understands evolution but very clearly does not, is it snide to tell him so?

... attempt to insult the intelligence...

Indefensible if it occurs. Calling someone stupid lies outside any bounds of acceptable board conduct. Calling someone ignorant, when evidence of that ignorance has been provided, should not.

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

Many times, but my comments on their fallacies are hardly ever responded to.

 

[Alceste]

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

Ok, absurdly specific and convoluted criticisms of single isolated examples of evolutionary biology, such as the rate and extent of adaptation of the HIV virus, is the number one tool. Projection is surely number two.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok, absurdly specific and convoluted criticisms of single isolated examples of evolutionary biology, such as the rate and extent of adaptation of the HIV virus, is the number one tool. Projection is surely number two.

I suppose when you get down to it, all their tools are pretty much equally ubiquitous and equally absurd. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As long as the term "evolutionist" is being used (because we're also a bunch of germist, and gravitationist, plate tectonicist, relativitist, and so on), there is going to be some nasty arguments over blatant ignorance vs asinine inpatients.
But it also depends on what one labels as a personal attack. To some, trying to explain that they do not understand what the theory of evolution is, and what their erroneous views are, is considered an attack, or dismissed as "typical "evolutionist" dismissal."

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.

Why should a lawyer, a prefession that is widely looked down upon for their willingness to lie to make a buck, be taken as more credible than someone who actually studies biology? Yes, that person is entitled to an opinion, but concerning biology is not anywhere close to the credibility, or equally credible, of a biologist who actually studies biology. Even saying something like "Darwinian evolution" shows a lack of understanding of what Darwin actually theorized. Darwin did not actually come up with evolution, however he did theorize evolution through the process of natural selection. And if you can't even get the basics right, why continue and read on?

 

[Willamena]

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.

What is it about a person, that a comment about their pride gets to constitute a 'personal attack' while a comment about their sincerity does not?

 

[McBell]

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.

I am actually wondering if Shermana is willing to practice what he preaches.

 

[fantome profane]

What is it about a person, that a comment about their pride gets to constitute a 'personal attack' while a comment about their sincerity does not?

I did not see a comment about a person's pride. If you did see such I comment perhaps you could point it out to me

But yes, if someone were to say something like "you are a creationist because you are too prideful.", or even "you don't have enough pride to accept evolution", those would be personal attacks, as well as nonsensical arguments.

But if I were to say someone's argument is silly, or even comical, that is not a personal attack.

And if someone's pride is wounded by the fact that I find their argument silly, that still does not make it a personal attack.

 

[Willamena]

I did not see a comment about a person's pride. If you did see such I comment perhaps you could point it out to me

But yes, if someone were to say something like "you are a creationist because you are too prideful.", or even "you don't have enough pride to accept evolution", those would be personal attacks, as well as nonsensical arguments.

But if I were to say someone's argument is silly, or even comical, that is not a personal attack.

And if someone's pride is wounded by the fact that I find their argument silly, that still does not make it a personal attack.

I disagree that attacking someone's sincerity fails to be a personal attack.

 

[outhouse]

So what makes their claims less valid of the opposing side than yours?

Because there is no "real" debate here.

Science does not debate biology. :slap: It is a fact.


Only those who do not understand it and purposely seek out to exploit gaps in science knowledge, have issues with the science at hand.

So to answer your questions, people with a non scientific agenda, make dishonest claims attacking science without a shred of credibility avoiding scientific knowledge, why should we give them the time of day?

 

[fantome profane]

I disagree that attacking someone's sincerity fails to be a personal attack.

Attacking a person's sincerity is a personal attack. I don't know where I stated or implied otherwise.

Telling someone that their argument is silly is not a personal attack.

 

[Ouroboros]

Everything makes a lot more sense after a couple of beers...

 

[Willamena]

Attacking a person's sincerity is a personal attack. I don't know where I stated or implied otherwise.

Telling someone that their argument is silly is not a personal attack.

Calling a person's argument "comic relief" is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Calling a person's argument "comic relief" is.

I suppose it is, if the person is sufficiently attached to that argument (which most people probably are).

All the same, sometimes one must call a cigar as a cigar.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Calling a person's argument "comic relief" is.

A personal attack has to do with the persons overall character. If I say you're stupid or a fool, that is a character description which would mean anything you say is stupid or foolish.

If I say your argument is stupid it's speaking of that specific argument. And you can still make an argument that isn't.

One targets the person one targets their argument.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

When I first read an argument it intrigues me and I take it on it's merits to be provisionally accepted or rejected and thus potentially impact upon my own position. I expect that others do the same - the problem arises however when they do not.

The problem is that while I have had such debates for about twelve years, I have not encountered a single novel (to me) argument in support of creationism for about a decade - each and every argument I have encountered since then I had read or heard before, each and every claim of having found a flaw in evolutionary theory I have encountered instead turned out to be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

When I hear the very same arguments put forward I do indeed try my best to engage in a manner that might not needlessly cause offence to the person with respect to what might be a dearly held belief. I try not to feel superior or to consider them some how less intelligent than I, instead I recognize that all people are ignorant (hence my username).

Yet I must admit that if I am continually presented with the same arguments (especially from the same person), than my perception of that engagement alters and becomes less benevolent. I begin to feel either frustrated or amused at what I often perceive as their inability to grasp an argument or counter-argument (provided that the difference in the strength of the argument is clear) though over time the amusement and frustration both fade to merely sadness at what I perceive as their self-imposed intellectual limitations. Finally this can turn from merely a change in perception to a change in behavior, becoming more terse in my replies and finally yes to what might be considered borderline rudeness (though I usually try to rephrase my posts when this occurs - though sometimes I wonder if my attempt to clarify and make such posts less vicious actually instead make them seem even more condescending or dismissive).

 

[fantome profane]

Calling a person's argument "comic relief" is.

It is not.

 

[Orcamute]

I think the problem mainly is, repetition. Now Evolution is a very, very complex issue. And to go into actual detail, write up a scientifically -evidence based response..can be time consuming and emotionally draining. The other issue is that doing so often sparks a general response of "no that can't be..it said in the bible."

The person who is discussing evolution is annoyed because they believe that their side is of real world issues that carries the evidence to prove so while the person discussing creationism is more likely to be relying on "the word of god" and are annoyed that you don't have the same faith as them and are disrespecting their god.

There is always two points to each argument, but unfortunately..whether or not your beliefs come to play in this subject matter. The evidence is there and it is quite overwhelming. Just as this computer works, as your cell phone works as light bulbs and hot air balloons work..its all from scientific theorems and laws. We can prove evolution, it is all around us from selective breeding in wolves causing domesticated dogs, adaptations in creatures that are secluded or put in different environments, antibiotics and medicine..even just how an organism is. Go to a different country with a different climate, you will see a variation of individuals..whether that be darker skin in africa or shorter individuals in asia to even abilities to withstand very cold climates like inuits.

On the other hand, creationism offers an absolute answer and is much easier to understand. It is also very interesting and a great piece of art work. We have built our society around such ideas (horror movies like the devil, angels, gods etc..). Without the appreciation of what both sides add to society, how boring and misguided must we be as human beings?

 

[Ouroboros]

Calling a person's argument "comic relief" is.

Slight difference.

Calling someone comical would be referring to the person. Calling someone's argument comical would be referring to the argument. The adjective "comical" is either connected to "someone" or "argument". Someone is the person, and argument is not. With that said, even though it's not explicitly saying that person is comical it's implicit in the "comical argument" claim that the person is also comical or a comedian. Which could be construed as a personal attack. It all depends on interpretation and reading more into the claim than what it literally says.

 

[Random]

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?

RF is a godless gulag. Just accept it.

Everyone in the 'clique' here (you know who they are...) is a devout anti-theist and they all shill for atheism and it's philosophical adjunct, evolution, incessantly.

The whole 'Evolution vs. Creationism' debate is a deliberately framed false-dichotomy with a hidden agenda. So the forum dedicated to it on this website is strictly for the uninformed.

What the debate is really about I leave up to you to figure out. I know.

As for the evolutionist's 'debating' tactics, it's basically mockery, snide innuendo and insults to one's intelligence and/or sanity.

The rest of it is fallacious junk that doesn't amount to much more than the Argument from Authority (the authority being 'science', and 'scientists', who say stuff that shows how they're all in 'support' of the theory).

But supporting something and proving it beyond-all-shadow-of-a doubt are two different things.

Oh, they'll waffle on about 'evidence', sure, but evidence of what?

You can't have proof of something without evidence, but you CAN have evidence without proof (which is what evolutionists who deny the existence of God the Creator have, ie. nothing.)

None of them it seems have read the Catholic encyclopedia articles on this issue, primarily because they all assume opposition to materialistic, anti-theistic evolutionary doctrine always comes from Christian Evangelicals who go on incessantly about the Bible and Genesis as if it were the literal truth as read (as opposed to being far more complicated than that..)

I believe in evolution in the broad sense of 'change over time', but defending its philosophical adjuncts is just too much like Faith.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Still waiting for a creationist who can actually display an understanding of evolutionary theory...