Mob Mentality (Or, Why Everyone Gangs up on Creationists)

Recently, I've seen complaints from creationists that all the evolutionists in the forum gang up on them. This in turn, discourages creationists from getting involved in active discussions, resulting in a forum dominated by one side and a dearth of good debate.

But how did the forum end up like this? If creationists are upset that evolutionists keep dominating things, why not just bring more creationists to the party to even things out?

Well, I have a theory (*) about this.

First of all, there's the issue of the numbers of creationists themselves. By and large, most free-range boards (i.e. ones that do not put restrictions on memberships) that I've seen dealing with creationism and evolution tend be dominated by evolutionists. In fact, the only boards I've seen where this is not the case tend to have strict rules limiting the ability for evolutionists to debate. So why are there more evolutionists?

Part of it is, well, there are just more evolutionists to begin with. Even in the U.S., creationists make up less than half of the population (44-47%, according to gallup polls for 1991 and 1997). And, while numbers for other countries are sketchy, by all accounts creationism does not have nearly the same foothold in places like Europe, Australia, or Canada.

In addition, evolutionists tend to be better educated than creationists when it comes to science. In this very forum there are a number of members either with scientific degrees in various fields (physics, geology, biology, etc) or are in the process of obtaining one. In comparison, I can't recall a single creationist with a degree in a comparative field that has ever been to this forum. Likewise, the number of creationists with scientific degrees is vanishingly small compared to regular scientists. For example, I have heard of only a handful of creationist geologists (Kurt Wise, Steve Austin, John Morris, Andrew Snelling), compared to over 40,000 geologists working in the United States alone (source). If there are more creationist scientists out there, they aren't making their presence known.

Why is the second point, important? Because the main issues focus on science, those with greater levels of scientific knowledge are at an inherent advantage when it comes to debate. Not that one necessarily requires a degree in a scientific field to be knowledgeable of science, but those with specialized training in and constant exposure to such fields have a leg-up on those without.

So right off the bat, the deck is stacked against creationists when approaching the debate. But that still doesn't answer why evolutionists gang up on creationists when they do.

The second part of the equation, I think, comes down to the way creationist material is presented and the debating tactics used by creationists. Material aimed at your average creationist is often distilled down to a bunch of sound bites; usually something that can be rattled off in a single sentence. Examples would include things like (taken from Kent Hovind's site):

The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions. The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now. The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.

While it's easy to rattle off a laundry list of points like that as "facts", the process of correcting them is often more involved. Sometimes this requires explaining certain scientific phenomenon from a basic level in order to correct misconceptions. And since the time involved can be great, it's no surprise many people will often jump in. Especially since creationists tend to attack all branches of science, whereas individual scientists only tend to have expertise in one field.

Further compounding this is the aggression demonstrated by some creationists. It's not hard to find a creationist who will approach a debate, rattle off a laundry list of "facts", then promptly declare defeated whatever scientific theories they were arguing against. To do this, especially when you are going up against people with training and careers in the fields being attacked, is more than a little arrogant. Imagine going into an airport and telling pilots they don't know how to fly an airplane because of some article you read on a web site. Or telling an engineer a building he designed is going to collapse, because of something you heard your preacher say. At best, they'll probably ignore you. But given that these forums are specifically for discussion and debate, it's no surprise that people choose to respond; and often aggression is met with aggression.

So what does all this mean? Aside from creationists being outnumbered and out-gunned to begin with, the tactics used by some creationists in debate often require multiple rebuttals, just to cover the points being made. So you end up with an environment that is cultured towards "mob mentality" when it comes to dealing with the opposition.

But can this be countered? I think so. But it requires that creationists do a couple things: 1) be willing to stick around until an adequate number of creationists have become regulars; and 2) become more knowledgeable about the subjects being debated so they can actually stick around when debating science. It would also help if creationists took a less aggressive approach to the debate. After all, come in with guns blazing and expect the same in kind. And all that will do is foster continued aggression on both sides of the debate.

* note: In this case, "theory" is being used in general laymen's terms, not scientific terms. As in, "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture". Just so there's no confusion.

__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

I don't buy the "ganging up on" in this case. There are more non-Creationists here, so to Creationists it seems as though they are being "ganged up on". There are probabaly(?) 10 Atheists/TE/Deists/Agnostic/other for every 1 Creationist. So everytime they make a statement many people are inclined to answer the one person. What do they want to go, one on one...in a thread?? It is ratios, that is all.

__________________

None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.

Plato, Symposium 203E-204A

Well written and well said.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

It doesn't help the ratio when we convert creationists to evolutionists.
The ratio also stays low because we often see post and runs from many creationists, people that as Pete said, post a list, declare victory in the same post and then never visit the science forum again.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

The Obediah's of the forum are another story. Here is a man who admittedly dropped out of school in the 10th grade but yet wants to argue science with people who have advanced degrees in the fields he is making claims against. It would be different if he even had ANY ideas based on ANYTHING!! He tells people "can't be so" or will throw out a strawman and then have nothing to say afterward. Or he will blurt out, "That is not how mutations work!!" But yet, will not discuss how they do work...that is why he gets it.

__________________

None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.

Plato, Symposium 203E-204A

While I agree part of it is the ratios of evolutionists to creationists, I still think there is a certain level of aggression involved in dealing with creationists. There are times when single evolutionist is all that is needed to rebuff a creationist's argument, yet you'll get several evolutionists responding, sometimes repeating each other in the process.

I can see how this might be intimidating to a creationist and discourage them from posting. At the same time, I think there is a reason for it and part of the blame lies with creationists.

__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

Speaking of ganging up on, I miss Napa John *giggles*

__________________

None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.

Plato, Symposium 203E-204A

Maybe so, but people come here to join in, so I doubt they are going to sit back and watch on a topic they feel passionately about. I am assuming the creationists want discussion too and that is why they come here. They never whine until it gets too deep for them and many get over their head without a floatation device-fast. If they can't take the heat, leave the Hovind quotes at home, or get out of the kitchen.

__________________

None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.

Plato, Symposium 203E-204A

True part of my, No Creationist Left Behind, platform....

__________________

None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.

Plato, Symposium 203E-204A

I prefer to call it, "Tough Love."

__________________

None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.

Plato, Symposium 203E-204A