Why scientists shouldn't debate creationists

[Noaidi]

Smoke and Alceste.

I understand what you are saying, but I'll have to agree to disagree. Allowing creationists into a University setting to debate with specialist academics in front of an audience is no bad thing, imo. If sections of society are scientifically illiterate, hearing a debate in which robust, evidence-based science is presented in opposition to what they have been told in church/bible class or wherever may open up at least a few eyes in the audience.

 

[Alceste]

Smoke and Alceste.

I understand what you are saying, but I'll have to agree to disagree. Allowing creationists into a University setting to debate with specialist academics in front of an audience is no bad thing, imo. If sections of society are scientifically illiterate, hearing a debate in which robust, evidence-based science is presented in opposition to what they have been told in church/bible class or wherever may open up at least a few eyes in the audience.

Well, let me put it this way: IF a creationist can be found whose academic credentials and accomplishments in the field of science are equal to those of the university's biology faculty, then of course a debate should be immediately arranged. I'll watch it myself.

Otherwise, I do not believe universities are in the habit of providing a platform for just any old yokel off the street to come in and express an opinion, nor should they be.

Keep in mind, my objection has nothing to do with creationism specifically. It's the principle that a debate is not a useful or interesting exercise unless the debators are equally credible, intelligent, respectable and academically accomplished. Otherwise it's just painful, like watching a cat toy with a mouse.

Plus I don't believe it would have the positive effect you hope for. Nobody's going to get put off YEC beliefs just because a biologist laid out the evidence in a debate. It's not as if they wouldn't otherwise have access to the evidence. School boards and governments are approving ID curricula not because ordinary people have been persuaded to support ID, but because religious groups have worked hard to place a majority of YEC operatives in school boards and governments.

 

[Noaidi]

Well, let me put it this way: IF a creationist can be found whose academic credentials and accomplishments in the field of science are equal to those of the university's biology faculty, then of course a debate should be immediately arranged. I'll watch it myself.

In the field of ID (which I regard as a form of creationism), there are numerous highly qualified scientists. Prof. Behe, for example. Regarding straightforward creationism, an interesting book is "In Six Days - Why Fifty Scientists Choose To Believe In Creation" edited by John F Ashton. In this book are contributions from biologists, geologists, physicists and chemists. All are qualified to PhD level.

There are plenty of highly qualified scientists believing in creationism - not just your Average Joe off the street.

Regarding the book, I found it quite sad that so many qualified and educated people accept creationism. It's worth a read just to hear how they manipulate their science to fit the bible.

 

[Gunfingers]

"Highly qualified in ID" and "Highly qualified scientist" are not the same thing. I'd call them mutually exclusive, in fact.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Perhaps if the creationists would like to pass a test on basic evolutionary biology then they would be worth debating.

Because let's face it the creationists have two POSSIBLE ways of winning a debate

a. by proving the existence of god

b. by disproving evolution

Now let's face it, if they take the b route i'll put everything i own on the fact that it is based on serious misconceptions on evolution. If you make them pass a test they will have the knowledge required to properly debate the topic.

When they start spewing out their misconceptions in the debate, the test can be pulled out they can be shown the errors in their arguments.

The creationist, of course, doesnt have to believe the answers that are writing down but they should be able to show an understanding of the other sides position.

Of course the evolutionary biologist should have to undertake a similar test on creationism but that would be easy. Every answer would be "God did it".

-Q

 

[Alceste]

In the field of ID (which I regard as a form of creationism), there are numerous highly qualified scientists. Prof. Behe, for example. Regarding straightforward creationism, an interesting book is "In Six Days - Why Fifty Scientists Choose To Believe In Creation" edited by John F Ashton. In this book are contributions from biologists, geologists, physicists and chemists. All are qualified to PhD level.

There are plenty of highly qualified scientists believing in creationism - not just your Average Joe off the street.

Regarding the book, I found it quite sad that so many qualified and educated people accept creationism. It's worth a read just to hear how they manipulate their science to fit the bible.

Books and websites about ID tend to inflate the credentials of their contributors, to put it nicely. I would definitely take such claims with a grain of salt.

 

[McBell]

I would definitely take such claims with a grain of salt.

You give them far to much credit...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Smoke and Alceste.

I understand what you are saying, but I'll have to agree to disagree. Allowing creationists into a University setting to debate with specialist academics in front of an audience is no bad thing, imo. If sections of society are scientifically illiterate, hearing a debate in which robust, evidence-based science is presented in opposition to what they have been told in church/bible class or wherever may open up at least a few eyes in the audience.

I don't think what you describe is an accurate reflection of most "evolution vs. creationism" debates. From what I've been able to gather, there's a few big issues with them:

- typically, they're not in a university setting; instead, they're more often in a setting of the creationist's choosing. This usually means that the audience is stacked with creationist supporters, and it also allows the creationists to use dishonest tactics in setting up the debate, such as changing the debate format or topic immediately before the debate, or by putting in place moderators who favour the creationist at the expense of the scientist... all of which I've heard of happening at these sorts of debates.

- winning or losing a debate often doesn't come down to facts as much as it does to rhetoric. A scientist may have excellent knowledge of his or her area of research, but this doesn't necessarily translate into a good ability to communicate this knowledge succinctly and persuasively to a general audience. OTOH, preachers are people who have raised rhetoric to a profession. They're usually very experienced at speaking persuasively in front of an audience. In the medium of a debate, facts mean nothing if they're not convincingly communicated, and the scientist will likely be confronted with an opponent who's very skilled at using rhetoric to undermine the convincing nature of those facts.

- the nature of the subject matter means that if the two debaters don't approach the debate in good faith and with honesty, then the evolutionist really has an uphill battle to fight... as illustrated by the "Gish Gallop": it's much easier to make unfounded claims about "problems" with evolution than it is to refute them.

A good, fair debate on creationism vs. evolution may be worthwhile, but unfortunately, these are few and far between.

 

[Noaidi]

Okay, I can see I'm pretty much a lone voice here! Perhaps I need to re-think the purpose of debate. Thanks for your views, folks.

 

[Alceste]

Okay, I can see I'm pretty much a lone voice here! Perhaps I need to re-think the purpose of debate. Thanks for your views, folks.

Well I agree with you that all things should be open to debate. I just don't think creationists are the best choice to argue for creationism in a University setting.

 

[Smoke]

In the field of ID (which I regard as a form of creationism), there are numerous highly qualified scientists. Prof. Behe, for example.

Behe notoriously made a fool of himself at the Dover trial and forfeited whatever credibility he might have had on the subject -- which wasn't much. His argument never did amount to more than irreducible complexity, anyway.

In the field of ID (which I regard as a form of creationism), there are numerous highly qualified scientists. Prof. Behe, for example. Regarding straightforward creationism, an interesting book is "In Six Days - Why Fifty Scientists Choose To Believe In Creation" edited by John F Ashton. In this book are contributions from biologists, geologists, physicists and chemists. All are qualified to PhD level.

What compelling arguments do they present in their respective fields?

 

[Noaidi]

Behe notoriously made a fool of himself at the Dover trial and forfeited whatever credibility he might have had on the subject -- which wasn't much. His argument never did amount to more than irreducible complexity, anyway.


What compelling arguments do they present in their respective fields?

Yes, Behe made a fool of himself at the trial. My more recent points above, though, concerned the qualifications of the scientists, not what they promote.

Regarding the 50 scientists: what compelling arguments do they present? None whatsoever, in my view. Hence the need to debate and expose them.

(but I'm on the losing end of the rope here, so I'll graciously bow out!)

 

[Gunfingers]

I know you're bowing out or whatever, but please read one of the discussion threads in this forum where some creationist tries to debate us. They bring the same "good points" that were proven wrong when Behe used them in the Dover trial, insist that they're actually right, and claim to have "destroyed" evolution. This will go on for 40 pages of discussion sometimes. Exposure doesn't generally work against these guys.

 

[Noaidi]

Gunfingers

OK, thanks for that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, I can see I'm pretty much a lone voice here! Perhaps I need to re-think the purpose of debate. Thanks for your views, folks.

Don't get me wrong: in principle, I think formal debates can be beneficial. However, I think that it's vital for all parties to approach the debate in good faith.

Unfortunately, this depends on finding an honest creationist opponent who knows and understands the claims of evolution but still believes in creationism anyhow - a stance that, IMO, usually involves some dishonesty itself.

The other problem is that you need to find a creationist who's willing to debate... and even creationists realize that standing in front of an audience saying "yeah, I agree the evidence seems to show that creationism is wrong, but I still believe it on faith" doesn't come across well in a debate. So, odds are that any creationist who's actually willing to engage in a high-profile public debate is one who's willing to misrepresent the facts.

So... if you can find an honest, knowledgeable creationist to debate, great. However, like I said, these are few and far between.

I know you're bowing out or whatever, but please read one of the discussion threads in this forum where some creationist tries to debate us. They bring the same "good points" that were proven wrong when Behe used them in the Dover trial, insist that they're actually right, and claim to have "destroyed" evolution. This will go on for 40 pages of discussion sometimes. Exposure doesn't generally work against these guys.

Yeah... good point. These sorts of forums get rid of a number of the problems I mentioned. The "Gish Gallop" only works when you've got a set time limit. If you can take as long as you like, there's nothing stopping you from going through your opponent's argument point-by-point, especially when his exact original words are sitting there for all the world to see.

 

[Gunfingers]

Yeah... good point. These sorts of forums get rid of a number of the problems I mentioned. The "Gish Gallop" only works when you've got a set time limit. If you can take as long as you like, there's nothing stopping you from going through your opponent's argument point-by-point, especially when his exact original words are sitting there for all the world to see.

It's easier, but they still use the same BS. They'll still come in with an article they'd know was completely false if they'd taken one look at TalkOrigins, ignore everything we say about evidence, and just in general do everything in Jose Fly's Creationist Primer.

This is why, despite my many contributions to the threads in this forum, i have never debated a creationist. I educate them. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

 

[painted wolf]

I think debate can be useful... if a good set of ground rules are set down beforehand.

For example, the rules of the courts... presentation of a case then rebuttal/questions. No, Gish gallops, no presentation of lies and cherry picked data/quotes...

Creationists only want debates where they have home-court advantage and can make the rules up as they go... which is why so many of them refuse to appear in court to defend creationism.

wa:do

 

[Man of Faith]

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

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

 

[The Neo Nerd]

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.