Are Creationists Afraid of Debate?

[Valkhorn]

I found this astonishing post in a thread in the Creationist Only thread of ChristianForums:

http://christianforums.com/f425

The Post:

Again, if I want to discuss with evolutionists and atheists I'll go into their territory. I want this forum to be closed because we need to have our own area where we can discuss things ourselves without interruptions.

I won't name the person who said this out of respect for their privacy but isn't this rather odd? If Creationists are so strong in their convictions why must they rope themselves off in a place where they will not be criticized or debated? Why do they need more patting of themselves on the back instead of careful scrutiny of their own ideas?

We've known for some time that Creationist groups like the Discovery Institute, AIG, and ICR have branched off into their own groups where debate is not welcome and conclusions are considered before any evidence - but why must this be the case if Creationists are so convinced of the truth? Plus, how many creationist only forums and discussion groups are there that are readily banning anyone who accepts Evolution - yet no Evolution discussion group or website that I know of readily bans Creationists (on the contrary they actually let them speak and engage in open debate).

And, aren't these the same groups that are demanding critical consideration of the theory of Evolution? Isn't it rather odd how critical thinking should be held towards Evolution but it is not held towards Creationism and Intelligent Design?

I'll leave you guys to discuss this further, but I found this post and thought I'd remark on it. Why must Evolution be censored while Creationism isn't allowed to be criticized?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I guess the person in question just wants to talk about the subject without debate. Probably just getting frustrated with the criticism.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If Creationists are so strong in their convictions why must they rope themselves off in a place where they will not be criticized or debated?

Certainly they can occasionally disengage from the debate to maybe get their ducks in a row. Unfortunately they do whine a lot as if science is played with nerf bats.

Creationists apparently aren't much acquainted with how science is done or they'd realize that science is a full-contact sport.

We've all had to endure pretty brutal defenses and we've all had senior faculty laugh out loud (literally) at things we've said. It's part of the "journeyman" aspect to becoming a full-fledged scientist. You have to be forged in a fire that few YEC or creationists appear to be able to handle.

So while I'm OK with them going off to their "holy of holies" and inner sanctums I wish they'd come back out with stronger debate skills. It seems to me that when they do get together among themselves they do so in order to braid each others' hair and tell each other how pretty and how smart they are, rather than helping each other actually get a stronger sense of HOW TO DEBATE SCIENCE OR LOGIC.

Creationists need to toughen up a bit and maybe come to the game prepared with more than a fresh set of "whines".

Why do they need more patting of themselves on the back instead of careful scrutiny of their own ideas?

When a field is established by people who can't make it in the real applications of a field that's pretty much all they have left.

We've known for some time that Creationist groups like the Discovery Institute, AIG, and ICR have branched off into their own groups where debate is not welcome and conclusions are considered before any evidence - but why must this be the case if Creationists are so convinced of the truth? Plus, how many creationist only forums and discussion groups are there that are readily banning anyone who accepts Evolution - yet no Evolution discussion group or website that I know of readily bans Creationists (on the contrary they actually let them speak and engage in open debate).

Well, to be fair to the Creationists, they pretty much know that it isn't going to take long in a discussion with scientists before they are in over their heads so they need someplace to go where the water isn't too deep.

That way they can splash around in the kiddiepool and pretend they are swimming The Channel.

I guess we shouldn't begrudge them their dreams. But they also need to be aware that sometimes the water is deep and dangerous and if they aren't able to swim without their feet touching the bottom they should stay out of the deep end of the pool.

And, aren't these the same groups that are demanding critical consideration of the theory of Evolution? Isn't it rather odd how critical thinking should be held towards Evolution but it is not held towards Creationism and Intelligent Design?

"Teach the Controversy" appears to me to be the last resort of people who realize their hypotheses are flawed, unsupported or superseded by real science. So they insist that controversy be acknowledged when there is little that is controversial in the discussion.

It is the same as "teaching the controversy" over the role of invisible undetectable fairies in electromagnetism. Note how many of their "controversies" ultimately have to resort to unfalsifiable claims.

Creationists want there to be controversy because it means for them that anyone's hypothesis must be considered. So for creationists who want this controversy they are actively undermining science not for the goal of better science but for the simple expedient of tearing down science.

For them they feel if science can be destroyed it will mean that their ideas can be presented on equal footing with the science.

Just watch sometime as one of the local YEC's on here try to explain how you can look at a geologic formation and see evidence of the Noachian Flood. Their utter lack of appreciation of the mass of data is clear, and they resort to vast sweeping hand-waves as if all rock is just mush into which they can push anything they want.

They try to create controversy, or they try to create doubt where no real doubt is necessary in hopes that if they muddy up the waters they will be able to push their ideas, because when the water is muddy no one sees clearly.

No scientist feels anything is wholly free of doubt or not open to further investigation. But that doubt and that investigation should always be with the aim of making the science stronger not weaker. And certainly questions of "origins" (which is not part of evolution) can be open to debate. However, as stated previously, it serves science not at all to propose supernatural explanations.

 

[BrainHertz]

I found this astonishing post in a thread in the Creationist Only thread of ChristianForums:

http://christianforums.com/f425

The Post:

I won't name the person who said this out of respect for their privacy but isn't this rather odd? If Creationists are so strong in their convictions why must they rope themselves off in a place where they will not be criticized or debated? Why do they need more patting of themselves on the back instead of careful scrutiny of their own ideas?

We've known for some time that Creationist groups like the Discovery Institute, AIG, and ICR have branched off into their own groups where debate is not welcome and conclusions are considered before any evidence - but why must this be the case if Creationists are so convinced of the truth? Plus, how many creationist only forums and discussion groups are there that are readily banning anyone who accepts Evolution - yet no Evolution discussion group or website that I know of readily bans Creationists (on the contrary they actually let them speak and engage in open debate).

And, aren't these the same groups that are demanding critical consideration of the theory of Evolution? Isn't it rather odd how critical thinking should be held towards Evolution but it is not held towards Creationism and Intelligent Design?

I'll leave you guys to discuss this further, but I found this post and thought I'd remark on it. Why must Evolution be censored while Creationism isn't allowed to be criticized?

Well, it would certainly bore the #@!$ out of me, but if somebody else wants to have a discussion without any rebuttal of anything they say, that's up to them. I don't think the poster was proposing posting to a closed forum exclusively.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just wanting a weed-free garden.

[bible]Matthew 13:26[/bible]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just wanting a weed-free garden.

[bible]Matthew 13:26[/bible]

Unfortunately, as in gardens, you can't control every aspect. Sometimes you have to contend with plants you didn't plant but showed up anyway.

 

[Washington]

Personally, I have no problem if people want to talk without interruption. Being relatively new here I wasn't even aware such a forum existed, but now that I'm up to speed it will be interesting to see what they have to say. All of which may provide for interesting fodder for this forum, notions that may never have come to light otherwise. I say, give 'em all the rope they need. I know I, for one, will be watching.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Personally, I have no problem if people want to talk without interruption. Being relatively new here I wasn't even aware such a forum existed, but now that I'm up to speed it will be interesting to see what they have to say. All of which may provide for interesting fodder for this forum, notions that may never have come to light otherwise. I say, give 'em all the rope they need. I know I, for one, will be watching.

I think it would be much more satisfying as a scientist if they would bring up some science once in a while.

It gets dull just handling PRATTS, but even PRATTS help me, since it educates me on the Points that they use.

I've lately gotten quite annoyed at those posters who don't take on the science, but equally never seem to broach history, philosophy or logic with more than a hamfisted manner.

Basically what I fear is that Fundamentalism, be it in the form of Biblical Literalists or YEC, is showing its true nature as anti-intellectualism.

I'm an atheist but I can appreciate the thought and logic and discussions that the early Church Fathers developed. I used to love the Ontological Argument. But it helps to see other thinkers' commentary and thought on it (like Kant's response). It's fun and edifying.

Fundamentalism would tear it all down, both the good (for their side) and the bad, the theological and the skeptical, alike. Fundamentalism is akin to an atomic bomb set off in a human mind. It is there to wipe out thought. Not to establish any ideas as stronger than others, but just to wipe out whatever is standing.

Then the "weeds" can take over I suppose. Poison the garden and hope the only things that grow in its place are the things you want. Nuke again and again and again until you get what you want.

 

[MoonLancer]

Just wanting a weed-free garden.

[bible]Matthew 13:26[/bible]

I hear if you use pesticides like truth, the weeds tend to only grow in the tiny cracks you missed.

 

[trivista]

Just wanting a weed-free garden.

[bible]Matthew 13:26[/bible]

To grown apples in?

 

[Dannager]

Just wanting a weed-free garden.

Then why do they yank out all the decent plants by the roots? Pretty soon you'll have nothing left but weeds.

Are creationists afraid of debate? Many of them are, yes. More precisely, they do not wish to be made uncomfortable by the prospect of having to challenge their closely-held religious beliefs. That is what frightens them. And it should! They were raised and taught to believe that if part of their religious belief is false, the rest of it must be false as well. It's no wonder they're so averse to exposing themselves to reality.

 

[FishFace]

Well, take a look at the results of my poll. Of the 11 who said they didn't come here, 6 said they found evolutionists too insulting or harsh, and 1 said they didn't like debating at all.

Now, here I can speak freely and have to suspect that people find taking an intellectual thrashing as an insult, but nonetheless, we can't attribute the entirety of the creationist absence to their dishonesty.

 

[troodon]

They tend to be hesitant to discuss evidence in any sort of meaningful, methodical way but if they want a certain part of the forums to be their own I see nothing wrong with that. The fact is that most of them aren't interested in evidence anyways, and they'll cling to their beliefs regardless of what "evos" tell them. IMO, the sort of people who would only read and post in a Creationist-only forum are the sort you'll never be able to convince.

 

[Valkhorn]

Are creationists afraid of debate? Many of them are, yes. More precisely, they do not wish to be made uncomfortable by the prospect of having to challenge their closely-held religious beliefs. That is what frightens them. And it should! They were raised and taught to believe that if part of their religious belief is false, the rest of it must be false as well. It's no wonder they're so averse to exposing themselves to reality.

I wonder how many of those realize that strict fundamentalism is a great way for people to lose faith when faced with reality. I wonder if they even are aware of this happening?

 

[Valkhorn]

Now, here I can speak freely and have to suspect that people find taking an intellectual thrashing as an insult, but nonetheless, we can't attribute the entirety of the creationist absence to their dishonesty.

Maybe it boils down to fear?

 

[TheBear]

Just wanting a weed-free garden.

[bible]Matthew 13:26[/bible]

I guess we could quote any random scripture, and make it say whatever point we wanted to make. But in this case, you're still going to have a problem, because Jesus disagrees with the notion of isolationism.

[BIBLE]Mark 16:15[/BIBLE]

 

[RichardT]

Actually, we want a forum void of evolutionists because we don't want to see idiotic remarks that are so pervasive on this forum by some evolutionists, not all, when discussing evolutionism and creationism between ourselves. Usually when there is a minority group, you let them have their own space. I think the OP is ridiculous, I like to debate, but it gets really tiring when there are always certain individuals that make all evolutionists and all atheists more specifically look bad. It would be great if we could have our own closed forum to discuss things between ourselves because we get tired of those certain evolutionists who make you all look bad and get us on our nerves.

Also, having our own forum doesn't mean that I'm going to stop posting here. In fact I've been quite active with this other online Creationist only group for the past 3 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are creationists afraid of debate? Many of them are, yes.

But not this one --- I'll make a monkey out of any evolutionist.

--- (did I say that right?)

 

[TheBear]

But not this one ---

I got to give you credit for that. You do stay in the fray.

I'll make a monkey out of any evolutionist.

Only in your own mind, AV. Only in your own mind.

 

[MoonLancer]

But not this one --- I'll make a monkey out of any evolutionist.

--- (did I say that right?)

yeah, um just like all those really well thought out challenges right...?

Your that comedic guy who gets his arms and legs chopped off and thinks he is winning. Monty Python and the holy grail comes to mind.