Why scientists shouldn't debate creationists

[arXter]

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.​

 

[darkendless]

Correct. I think that was a very respectful letter, he could have gone and either proven beyond reasonable doubt how ignorant some people are, or smashed some creationsists back to Noah's ark haha.

It scares me how ignorant people can be, even when presented with evidence. Perhaps the author of the letter did not want the shock of finding out how ignorant people are of evidence even when it is thrown in their face.

 

[Noaidi]

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.

 

[evolved yet?]

Look at the fourth panel.

 

[Rakhel]

I so love the modern world. Honest. I do

 

[Random]

Both sides are a complete waste of time and space once opposed to each other, nothing will be truly learnt or advanced this way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Both sides are a complete waste of time and space once opposed to each other, nothing will be truly learnt or advanced this way.

Au contraire! Civil debate has an effect, but just not on every person on a given day. In the long run, that's
how our thought changes. After all, how many of us still believe that the sun revolves around the earth?

 

[Sunstone]

Au contraire! Civil debate has an effect, but just not on every person on a given day. In the long run, that's
how our thought changes. After all, how many of us still believe that the sun revolves around the earth?

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

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Perhaps, but it used to be 97.9% just 20 years ago.
And now, only 16% believe that the Sun has a smiley face drawn on it.
This progress is all due to open & civil discussion/debate.

Perhaps a more useful way to view it is that 100% of astronomers (even Vatican cosmologists) believe the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Go back a bunch of centuries, & you'd find that a majority of church-sanctioned astronomers believed otherwise.

 

[lunamoth]

I think it is pointless for scientists to debate creationists.

I would be interested to hear one testable hypothesis in support of the theory of special creation by God. Until then, special creation is not a scientific idea and so it would be like debating evolution vs. the music of Mozart.

 

[City_Hunter]

Scientists should not debate creationists. To do so would in some way, legitimise creationism and make them think it is equal to Science. Besides, creationists do more to harm their delusions by the way they behave than anyone else ever could in a debate.

 

[Noaidi]

To all those opposed to debate, have another look at evolved yet?'s post above.

 

[Smoke]

To all those opposed to debate, have another look at evolved yet?'s post above.

I don't think a university should provide a pulpit to a snake oil salesman just because the snake oil salesman will try to spin their refusal.

 

[Noaidi]

I don't think a university should provide a pulpit to a snake oil salesman just because the snake oil salesman will try to spin their refusal.

But if creationists are not debated or required to come up with valid evidence, then they will continue peddling whatever nonsense they want. If they debate with scientists on matters concerning evolution, flood geology etc, then they would have to verify their claims, which, of course, they can't do.
Debate exposes charlatans as they increasingly back themselves into a corner.

 

[Alceste]

But if creationists are not debated or required to come up with valid evidence, then they will continue peddling whatever nonsense they want. If they debate with scientists on matters concerning evolution, flood geology etc, then they would have to verify their claims, which, of course, they can't do.
Debate exposes charlatans as they increasingly back themselves into a corner.

It's not as if refusing to give them a reputable academic podium from which to debate prevents them from being debated. Look around you - they're debated all the time down here among the rest of us ignorant, unqualified plebes whose opinions have no weight beyond the relative merits of our arguments. Allowing creationists to debate qualified evolutionary biologists in academic institutions creates the false public perception that the two ideas are of equal academic status and credibility. That's the only reason they want to do it in fact - it helps with their propaganda. It's also worth noting that as notorious liars and cherry pickers they can not be trusted to realistically portray the results or their opponent's position in subsequent press releases.

I understand the university's position: besides elevating creationists toward the status of qualified biologists, such debates also drag qualified biologists down toward the status of creationists. Universities have their own reputation and credibility to consider. Such debates could potentially reduce the value of a university's biology degrees, which is not in the best interest of their students.

 

[Smoke]

But if creationists are not debated or required to come up with valid evidence, then they will continue peddling whatever nonsense they want. If they debate with scientists on matters concerning evolution, flood geology etc, then they would have to verify their claims, which, of course, they can't do.
Debate exposes charlatans as they increasingly back themselves into a corner.

They can be exposed without debating them. They can't get their nonsense published in reputable journals, so seeking this kind of "debate" is their way of seeking a respectable facade for it.

Their followers are not rational people to begin with. At least, they're not rational on this subject. Creationists will spin your refusal to debate, but they'll spin your agreeing to debate, too. Creating the illusion that there is anything to debate is one of their strategies; "teach the controversy" is one of their favorite battle cries. While refusing to debate them may appear at first glance to play into their hands, agreeing to debate them is even worse. If it's necessary to refute them, that can be done without giving them a platform from which to spew their filth.

The problem isn't that Americans have been seduced by creationist arguments. The problem is that creationists have been so successful in shaping public perceptions, especially on the school board level, that many Americans have never been exposed to the science at all, not even in science classes -- shockingly often, not even in biology classes.

 

[McBell]

But if creationists are not debated or required to come up with valid evidence, then they will continue peddling whatever nonsense they want.

Interestingly enough, it seems as though people are much more interested in myth and fantasy than in truth and facts.

If they debate with scientists on matters concerning evolution, flood geology etc, then they would have to verify their claims, which, of course, they can't do.

And yet that fact has not even slowed them down, let alone stopped them.What is the percentage of Americans who do not accept evolution?

Debate exposes charlatans as they increasingly back themselves into a corner.

One would think it would.
Seems to me that the polls indicate you are mistaken.

 

[Alceste]

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

 

[lunamoth]

I think psychologists, theologians, and philosophers should be debating the creationists. Maybe we should sic the Jesuits on them.

 

[Alceste]

I think psychologists, theologians, and philosophers should be debating the creationists. Maybe we should sic the Jesuits on them.

Yes that would make far more sense. Creationists should debate evolutionary theists at theological institutions.