A challenge has been issued

[Shemjaza]

So you wouldn't mind joining some creation scientists on stage to debate all this then and show them how wrong they are?

I've seen some efforts by creationists to create situation. Unfalsifiable statements and shifting the burden of proof are common.

There are a number of evolution supporters who are happy to engage in debate, former CF poster AronRa for example. However, you haven't presented why people should engage with creationists in a debate when they have such a long history of dishonesty in that medium?

 

[The Cadet]

That's all very nice and dandy but it excludes the general public from having any of this explained to them in a way that they can understand and with both parties present so that they can see which side gives the most plausible answers to life's big questions.

The problem with this is that the general public is extremely ill-served by such a debate. It does not help them get answers to get peppered with disparate facts from various parties sniping at each other. Rewatch the Nye/Ham debate and tell me - did you actually gain any significant knowledge about evolution or creationism? Maybe bits and pieces, but nothing resembling an actual education in either field.

And that's what the general populace needs. An education. We need to figure out what the right answer is, and actually educate them on it. Offer them a comprehensive education in an environment where all the educating parties are clear on what the facts are and what the goal is. Like, I dunno, a biology class. And the debate to figure out what the right answer is before the education happens should not be done for the entertainment of the layperson. It should be done for the sake of improving our understanding of the world. And that should take place within the scientific literature, between trained professionals who understand what they're talking about and aren't going to muddy the waters with obvious, stupid mistakes (like claiming that heavy snowfall in one area disproves ice core dating).

Most people haven't got the time or the expertise to wade through masses of technical literature and then try to evaluate who is closer to the truth, so most people either don't bother to think about it, blindly accept what few facts they are given or just remain sitting on the fence, unable to come to any decision at all. These are the fundamentals of our very existence and everyone who is able should be encouraged to get involved, for until we know for sure where we came from, we can't know where we are going.

I have no understanding of modern physics. None. Nada. Zip. I don't get it. I don't think I ever will get it. It's fundamental to how every aspect of reality works, but I just don't get it at all. With that in mind, do you think that my involvement will in any way further our understanding of physics? Or do you think I'll just waste some expert's time who has to point out where the flaws in my (horrendously naive, uneducated) research is?

So why is evolution somehow different?

Look, there's a reason scientific debate always has and always will take place in the arena of peer review rather than the arena of popular review. It's because it is necessary. You think people should learn about these things? Okay, let's figure out which is correct (we have, it's evolution, and if it weren't for the political machinations of the religious right it wouldn't even be a debate worth having any more), and then teach that to children in school. That's how we deal with these issues - we teach the understood, established scientific facts in public schooling. That's how we educate the populace. Not with some bogus debate where on one hand you have a scientist explaining facts that most likely go over most of the audience's head, and on the other you have a creationist repeating PRATT and lying about what the science really says.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Please do enlighten us. I did watch it, but I don't think it really went into enough depth. What "results" do you have?

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-nye-wins-creation-debate-against-ken-ham-2014-2
The article is a year old. Since then the number of votes for Nye has nearly doubled.

Eta:

To these high priests of evolution, we say, “We are ready, so why do you keep avoiding CMI?

I don't even know if this is hyperbole written out to be meme'd or seriously serious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Creation-believing scientists have issued a challenge to debate science with evolution-believing scientists:-

A challenge
To these high priests of evolution, we say, “We are ready, so why do you keep avoiding CMI? Keep the ad hominem out of it; our science against yours. If your case is so strong, engage us in open and frank debate.”
http://creation.com/teaching-creati...=infobytes&utm_content=gb&utm_campaign=emails

Who among you that are so sure evolution is a fact will take up their offer? Even better, ask an independent person or persons to film it so we can all witness the outcome. Let it be broadcast on national TV for all to see. Now's your chance to lay your cards on the table.

The cards of science are not only already on the table....
They've been dealt and biology drew a Royal Flush.

Meanwhile "creation science" was bluffing with 3-7 off suit.
Biology has long moved on since then. And "creation science" 's ego is so hurt that it keeps on yapping about how the deck was stacked and how biology cheated to get a Royal Flush.



Having said that for giggles (sort of...), the "cards" of biology are not on the 'public' table. They are in the papers being published. That's where "the battle of science" is fought. In academic circles, scrutinized to hell and back.

If "creation science" wants a "fair fight", then they can face the harsh scrutiny of the scientific community, just like every one else that wants to defend an idea he/she thinks is scientific.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is it always just a debate between creationists (usually placing faith in one "God" who is the creator) and evolutionists (who usually deny the existence of such a God)?

Let us polytheists join in as well

Or, the extra-funny, debates between creationists themselves.

Take 2 different fundamentalist christian churches and have the pastors go at it.
Pretty much the only thing they'll agree on is "god-did-it" and "jezus is awesome".

The other day there was a thread here asking a question about a specific thing concerning creationism. A couple of prominent members, that usually stand firmly together against mainstream biology, swooped in there and pretty much agreed on nothing.

I thought that was hilarious.

It would be funny as hell to see Ken Ham go up against Kent Hovind or something. For additional entertainment value, we could throw Ray "banana man" Comfort into that pit as well.
Ow man...

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's all very nice and dandy but it excludes the general public from having any of this explained to them in a way that they can understand and with both parties present so that they can see which side gives the most plausible answers to life's big questions.

Nobody is stopping those interested into enrolling in college courses to learn more about it.

Those not able to, nothing stops them from buying any of the thousands of good books discussing the basics of biology in ways that you can understand it without having any kind of background training.

Those not wanting to buy a book, the internet is filled with blogs and wikipedia pages explaining how evolution works.

Those being to lazy to even do that...
Well... what are they complaining about, really?

These are the fundamentals of our very existence and everyone who is able should be encouraged to get involved, for until we know for sure where we came from, we can't know where we are going.

And everybody IS encouraged to get involved.
But if everybody is to lazy to do so properly, then that's on them - not on the scientists.

People are free to enroll in universities, do their own research and publish their own papers to contribute to our collective knowledge.

You don't get them involved by putting on a big debate show, which is all about who has the smoothest talk or the more popular persona. Not about who has actual facts.

"Getting involved" means "doing science".

Science is not a popularity or speaking contest.

 

[TheBarrd]

The challenge was issued first by Francis Bacon. It's called the scientific method and the scientific community. The challenge is to do real scientific research, support your hypothesis, publish the research, and defend it in front of your peers. These venues include the peer reviewed science journals and scientific conferences.

That is where the real debate is, and creationists avoid those venues like the plague. The original challenge is still there, and creationists need to take it up. Until they do, they have no leg to stand on.

Are you aware that there are Christians who do understand that?
They may not understand all the science behind some theory, but they do understand what science is and what it is not...

 

[TheBarrd]

Or, the extra-funny, debates between creationists themselves.

Take 2 different fundamentalist christian churches and have the pastors go at it.
Pretty much the only thing they'll agree on is "god-did-it" and "jezus is awesome".

The other day there was a thread here asking a question about a specific thing concerning creationism. A couple of prominent members, that usually stand firmly together against mainstream biology, swooped in there and pretty much agreed on nothing.

I thought that was hilarious.

It would be funny as hell to see Ken Ham go up against Kent Hovind or something. For additional entertainment value, we could throw Ray "banana man" Comfort into that pit as well.
Ow man...

That's barbaric...

 

[TheBarrd]

It would be the job of creationists to do original research, back their hypothesis, publish the research, and defend that work in front of their peers in the scientific community. They won't do it. They refuse to step into the ring.

Now, I think you know that would be impossible.
Creationism (ism?) isn't a hypothesis, it is faith.
The thing creationists do not understand (and maybe some science geeks don't really "get it" either) is that the Bible is not and never was intended to be a science textbook. God wasn't giving the world a technical manual on how to build your own universe in just six days or how to create a man.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to anyone that God invented science in the first place.

 

[The Cadet]

Now, I think you know that would be impossible.
Creationism (ism?) isn't a hypothesis, it is faith.

Someone really ought to pass that message on to CMI.

 

[TheBarrd]

Someone really ought to pass that message on to CMI.

We've tried. They don't listen to Christians either...
Go figure.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now, I think you know that would be impossible.
Creationism (ism?) isn't a hypothesis, it is faith.
The thing creationists do not understand (and maybe some science geeks don't really "get it" either) is that the Bible is not and never was intended to be a science textbook. God wasn't giving the world a technical manual on how to build your own universe in just six days or how to create a man.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to anyone that God invented science in the first place.

No, science is absolutely a human "invention".

Having said that, LM knows very well that it is just a faith based position (which goes against the evidence of reality).

But he's responding to the thread author, who clearly disagrees with your views.

 

[pshun2404]

Why is it always just a debate between creationists (usually placing faith in one "God" who is the creator) and evolutionists (who usually deny the existence of such a God)?

Let us polytheists join in as well

Yeah I would rather see a round table discussion...and throw in a catastrophe theorist and a post modernist and a few more...but they all have to have at least an MA in a scientific field of research...

 

[The Cadet]

Why am I somehow reminded of "Both Sides" by SMBC theater?

 

[ananda]

Yeah I would rather see a round table discussion...and throw in a catastrophe theorist and a post modernist and a few more...but they all have to have at least an MA in a scientific field of research...

I guess that would exclude Jesus and his apostles.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I've just watched a debate between a creation-believing scientist and an evolution beleiving scientist, but I didn't get much out of it, partly but not totally due to the sometimes poor sound quality.

I think the only way the public would get anything out of this would be if they were the ones to pose the questions, e.g., a studio audience in a live debate. Otherwise, the scientists on both sides would just pick their own particular topics that they think supported their ideas and the persons watching the exchanges would learn very little. The subject matter could be widened to include all things relating to our existence, so would take in astrophysics as well. Here are some examples of questions that such an audience might want to pose:-

• Where did all the space and matter come from to form the universe and what was before that?
• How could life get started from lifeless chemicals?
• Why is the sun misaligned by about 7 degrees to all the planets that orbit it?
• What about the unusual rotation of Uranus - how can that be explained?
• How could the first stars form just from gas?
• Why are there fully-formed galaxies right at the edge of the known universe, where even stars should barely be forming?
• What do you think is beyond the known universe?
• Given that comets have a relatively very short life span, is there any hard evidence to show where they are being formed or is it just speculation?
  
• How do you overcome the problem of chirality in amino acids and proteins?
• Where did all the vast amounts of information in our cells come from?
• Define evolution and then provide some examples of it occurring in the world around us.
• Give some examples of definite transitional creatures in the fossil record, given that most of what we know about a creature is apparently only contained in its soft tissues, long since lost.
• What would it take to convince you of the possibility that the universe was supernaturally created? If you already accept that as being the most likely cause of all reality, explain why you believe that to be the best explanation.
• Do you accept that life appears to be designed and if so, who do you think is/was the designer?
• How do you account for the anthropic principle?

 

[lasthero]

Many of those questions have nothing to do with evolution, so I'm not sure what place they would have in an evolution debate. But if you have questions about them, you're best bet would be to actually ask people in the respective fields - cosmologists, physicists, biologists, et cetera. The internet is a big place, and there are many experts in those fields who, if you send them your questions, will actually take the time to give you good, solid answers. There are even forums like EvC, where many scientists with relevant degrees routinely hang out and will happily debate with people on such subjects, if that's your cup of tea.

Many of these topics are quite complex, and not everything can be 'dumbed down' for public consumption. You shouldn't expect a scientist to be able to explain a complex topic is some short answer if asked on the spot.

 

[HitchSlap]

I've just watched a debate between a creation-believing scientist and an evolution beleiving scientist, but I didn't get much out of it, partly but not totally due to the sometimes poor sound quality.

I think the only way the public would get anything out of this would be if they were the ones to pose the questions, e.g., a studio audience in a live debate. Otherwise, the scientists on both sides would just pick their own particular topics that they think supported their ideas and the persons watching the exchanges would learn very little. The subject matter could be widened to include all things relating to our existence, so would take in astrophysics as well. Here are some examples of questions that such an audience might want to pose:-

• Where did all the space and matter come from to form the universe and what was before that?
• How could life get started from lifeless chemicals?
• Why is the sun misaligned by about 7 degrees to all the planets that orbit it?
• What about the unusual rotation of Uranus - how can that be explained?
• How could the first stars form just from gas?
• Why are there fully-formed galaxies right at the edge of the known universe, where even stars should barely be forming?
• What do you think is beyond the known universe?
• Given that comets have a relatively very short life span, is there any hard evidence to show where they are being formed or is it just speculation?
  
• How do you overcome the problem of chirality in amino acids and proteins?
• Where did all the vast amounts of information in our cells come from?
• Define evolution and then provide some examples of it occurring in the world around us.
• Give some examples of definite transitional creatures in the fossil record, given that most of what we know about a creature is apparently only contained in its soft tissues, long since lost.
• What would it take to convince you of the possibility that the universe was supernaturally created? If you already accept that as being the most likely cause of all reality, explain why you believe that to be the best explanation.
• Do you accept that life appears to be designed and if so, who do you think is/was the designer?
• How do you account for the anthropic principle?

PRATT's, one and all.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you wouldn't mind joining some creation scientists on stage to debate all this then and show them how wrong they are?

When they have original scientific research to present, I would love to see it. The problem is that they don't have any science to present at the moment. All they do is misrepresent the science that others have done.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's all very nice and dandy but it excludes the general public from having any of this explained to them in a way that they can understand and with both parties present so that they can see which side gives the most plausible answers to life's big questions.

The plausibility of a scientific theory isn't determined by the general public in a 30 minute debate. If you want to understand the science, then you are going to have to put some effort into it.

Most people haven't got the time or the expertise to wade through masses of technical literature and then try to evaluate who is closer to the truth, so most people either don't bother to think about it, blindly accept what few facts they are given or just remain sitting on the fence, unable to come to any decision at all. These are the fundamentals of our very existence and everyone who is able should be encouraged to get involved, for until we know for sure where we came from, we can't know where we are going.

Scientists do have the time, and it is their job to do this. Over 99% of biologists agree that the theory of evolution is a well supported and valid scientific theory, including thousands and thousands of scientists who also happen to be Christians.