Why scientists shouldn't debate creationists

[Gunfingers]

Ahhhh... I see what you did there. Are you trying to say that "evolutionists" aren't scientists? Sneaky.

On the plus side, he finally admitted there's no science to creationism!

 

[LuisDantas]

I think it is important that creationists be debated.
Given that they have considerable influence over how many think, to let creationist views go unchallenged would be wrong. The fact that creationism is being promoted in school science classes despite having no scientific basis is reason enough to confront it. Heck, even scientists debate with each other over their findings. Nothing should be exempt from scrutiny.

Certainly. But Creationism shouldn't be treated as if it had any scientific basis. That is why the writer says that it shouldn't be debated on a campus.

I agree. All too often Creationism is lend a veneer of respectability and seriousness that doesn't really fit it, just because people who know better bother to disconstruct it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree in principle, scientists should debate scientists and evolutionists should debate creationists.

But evolutionists are not at the same level as creationists. Why treat them as if they were?

 

[Revoltingest]

About 50% of Americans still believe the sun revolves around the earth, according to polls.

50%????????????????

New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels

And 93.7% of posters make up poll numbers on the spot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Certainly. But Creationism shouldn't be treated as if it had any scientific basis. That is why the writer says that it shouldn't be debated on a campus.

What about this campus?
Home - Oral Roberts University - A Christian College, based in Tulsa Oklahoma.

 

[Man of Faith]

Ahhhh... I see what you did there. Are you trying to say that "evolutionists" aren't scientists? Sneaky.

Are you trying to say that all evolutionists are scientists?

 

[Man of Faith]

But evolutionists are not at the same level as creationists. Why treat them as if they were?

I'm not sure what this means, same level. Do they stand on a platform?

 

[Sunstone]

50%????????????????

New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels

And 93.7% of posters make up poll numbers on the spot.

Sorry, my memory failed me. I thought it was about 50% who believed the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry, my memory failed me. I thought it was about 50% who believed the sun revolves around the earth.

72% of Sunstone's incorrect statistics are the result of age-related senility.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sorry, my memory failed me. I thought it was about 50% who believed the sun revolves around the earth.

72% of Sunstone's incorrect statistics are the result of age-related senility.

Actually, it's from the bricks he smashes on his head as a testament to his manhood.

 

[AntonBatey]

Besides, more and more religious people are accepting evolution. 10-15 years from now the debate will be over.

 

[Gunfingers]

Yeah, like how everyone has accepted the moon landing. Conspiracy theories never die.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure what this means, same level. Do they stand on a platform?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Evolutionists have facts, evidence, and over a century of solid research. Creationists have stubborness, albeit calling it Faith.

Not a fair confrontation by any reasonable standards.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you trying to say that all evolutionists are scientists?

In the correct usage of the term "evolutionist", it means a scientist who studies evolution, so in that context, yes.

However, you implied that "evolutionists" and "scientists" as two mutually exclusive categories - IOW, nobody who's an "evolutionist" (however you're using the term) is a scientist. Are you trying to say that?

 

[painted wolf]

The problem i see with all the creationists who are arguing with scientists is that they are woefully under educated on the subject they are arguing. This leaves the scentist with the task of having to educate the creationist who is usually a very uncooperative student.

I hear that! :bonk:

wa:do

 

[cynic2005]

I think it is important that creationists be debated.
Given that they have considerable influence over how many think, to let creationist views go unchallenged would be wrong. The fact that creationism is being promoted in school science classes despite having no scientific basis is reason enough to confront it. Heck, even scientists debate with each other over their findings. Nothing should be exempt from scrutiny.

I debated with a creationist once. His argument in response to my discussion about the evolution of domestic dogs was, "how do you know, were you there?"

Anyways, people see what they want to see, especially creationists. If you showed them indisputable evidence, they would consider it deception and possibly the work of Satan. So, IMO, debate is fruitless.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I hear that! :bonk:

wa:do

How many times have you had to explain survival of the fittest and common descent to someone who has minimal if not completely misguided knowledge on the subject.

Perhaps you could create a simple exam with the basics that every creationist must pass before you will engage them in debate on evolution.

Something simple, maybe multiple choice.

-Q

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps you could create a simple exam with the basics that every creationist must pass before you will engage them in debate on evolution.

Ideally that would be high school science.

wa:do

 

[Richard Hayman]

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.​

This is taken from an open letter by Prof Nicholas Gotelli in reply to an invite by the anti-evolutionist Discovery Institute.

He goes on to say:

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit an invitation.

In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can't tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.

Sincerely yours,

Nick Gotelli

P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.​

I believe that we as rational thinkers should do what guys like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do.... Just absolutely tar and feather them in debates and than laugh at how big of a moron they have to be to subscribe to such a ridiculous frivolous ideology.

 

[painted wolf]

I believe that we as rational thinkers should do what guys like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do.... Just absolutely tar and feather them in debates and than laugh at how big of a moron they have to be to subscribe to such a ridiculous frivolous ideology.

Yeah, because that works.

wa:do