There are many flawed arguments seen on both sides of the creationism vs evolution debate, but these in particular annoy me not only with how flawed they are, but in how often I see them as well. Yes, I will be addressing both bad evolution support and bad creationism support, no mercy for those who happen to generally agree with me.
Creationism:
1. Humans/life/the universe exist, therefore god- Just because these or any number of other things exist doesn't mean any deities, let alone the specific one you worship, exist. Even if that existence seems really improbable, to be frank, how probable the existence of these items are is impossible to actually measure; most estimates are at best educated guesses by various experts, and at worst they are numbers some blogger pulls out of their butt.
2. Well, scripture says...- So? Obviously I don't view that source as having the weight you think it does. You might as well be saying "well, Green Eggs and Ham says", because a person who doesn't consider scripture to be written or influenced by an existing deity such as myself is never going to be convinced on anything based on what it says, unless perhaps I missed something big when I read it.
3. Evolution claims- This is in regards to the sheer amount of ignorance I see posted about the theory itself. Oh yes, your argument would absolutely make perfect and reasonable sense, if you were actually talking about what the theory says. Just a thought people, don't learn about evolution solely from apologists and other sources which stand to gain from making the theory look ridiculous and stupid.
Evolution:
1. General defense of abiogenesis, universal common ancestor, etc- What are you even doing? People group all of these as being a part of the theory of evolution badly enough as it is. If creationists bring them up, and you feel the need to respond, then please, please, please, mention that what you are defending is not a part of evolution. Do not perpetuate the idea that evolution covers all this stuff when it doesn't. It makes future debates that much harder.
2. You have to believe the scripture word for word, or not believe any of it- Ridiculous, many ancient languages used symbolism and allegory extensively in order to make up for limited vocabularies. Heck, it seems to me nearly half of the OT characters have name puns. Worse, this is an attack aimed at the more moderate believers, who tend to be more open to different positions than strictly fundamentalist believers. Doing this shuts down any hope of decent discourse with them and makes you look terrible.
3. Defending atheism itself- I'd say pretty much every atheist, including myself, gets goaded into doing this to some extent on this subforum. We need to just not, evolution is a secular theory, just like any other scientific theory. You aren't doing it any favors by putting an explicitly naturalistic spin on it, and the more we fall into the pattern of defending atheism specifically, the less we actually defend evolution itself. I am going to try harder, and we all should try harder, to not let philosophy take over the scientific debate. I am super guilty of it, and perhaps even one of the worst offenders, but I think we should just collectively try to reduce the derailing.
Both:
Subtle and not so subtle insults- this ruins any chance at civil and productive conversation, both sides of the debate do it, and it can get really bad. And the no flaming rule on this site has just made all of us better at making implied insults rather than making us more polite. Yes, even be polite to the people who are rude to you, honestly, kill them with kindness. And when you show a willingness to listen to ideas, even if privately you find them ridiculous, and be tactful when you express any flaws you perceive, it makes for a far better debate all around. We might not all agree on every issue, but we are all still human. We have more in common than not, the opposing sides of debates need not be emotionally set as enemies.
Creationism:
1. Humans/life/the universe exist, therefore god- Just because these or any number of other things exist doesn't mean any deities, let alone the specific one you worship, exist. Even if that existence seems really improbable, to be frank, how probable the existence of these items are is impossible to actually measure; most estimates are at best educated guesses by various experts, and at worst they are numbers some blogger pulls out of their butt.
2. Well, scripture says...- So? Obviously I don't view that source as having the weight you think it does. You might as well be saying "well, Green Eggs and Ham says", because a person who doesn't consider scripture to be written or influenced by an existing deity such as myself is never going to be convinced on anything based on what it says, unless perhaps I missed something big when I read it.
3. Evolution claims- This is in regards to the sheer amount of ignorance I see posted about the theory itself. Oh yes, your argument would absolutely make perfect and reasonable sense, if you were actually talking about what the theory says. Just a thought people, don't learn about evolution solely from apologists and other sources which stand to gain from making the theory look ridiculous and stupid.
Evolution:
1. General defense of abiogenesis, universal common ancestor, etc- What are you even doing? People group all of these as being a part of the theory of evolution badly enough as it is. If creationists bring them up, and you feel the need to respond, then please, please, please, mention that what you are defending is not a part of evolution. Do not perpetuate the idea that evolution covers all this stuff when it doesn't. It makes future debates that much harder.
2. You have to believe the scripture word for word, or not believe any of it- Ridiculous, many ancient languages used symbolism and allegory extensively in order to make up for limited vocabularies. Heck, it seems to me nearly half of the OT characters have name puns. Worse, this is an attack aimed at the more moderate believers, who tend to be more open to different positions than strictly fundamentalist believers. Doing this shuts down any hope of decent discourse with them and makes you look terrible.
3. Defending atheism itself- I'd say pretty much every atheist, including myself, gets goaded into doing this to some extent on this subforum. We need to just not, evolution is a secular theory, just like any other scientific theory. You aren't doing it any favors by putting an explicitly naturalistic spin on it, and the more we fall into the pattern of defending atheism specifically, the less we actually defend evolution itself. I am going to try harder, and we all should try harder, to not let philosophy take over the scientific debate. I am super guilty of it, and perhaps even one of the worst offenders, but I think we should just collectively try to reduce the derailing.
Both:
Subtle and not so subtle insults- this ruins any chance at civil and productive conversation, both sides of the debate do it, and it can get really bad. And the no flaming rule on this site has just made all of us better at making implied insults rather than making us more polite. Yes, even be polite to the people who are rude to you, honestly, kill them with kindness. And when you show a willingness to listen to ideas, even if privately you find them ridiculous, and be tactful when you express any flaws you perceive, it makes for a far better debate all around. We might not all agree on every issue, but we are all still human. We have more in common than not, the opposing sides of debates need not be emotionally set as enemies.
Last edited:
