Debating Creationists

[Percivale]

I notice posts on atheism and evolution get pretty long here, so I'll start another. I'd like to discuss whether Creationism is scientific, or why macro-evolution may be wrong. I've read The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins), and The First Chimpanzee, and find neither of them convincing. If anyone has a recommendation as to what you believe to be the best defense of evolutionism, I'll plan on reading it. In return, I'd suggest reading Darwin's Doubt.
As for why Dawkins and others won't debate creationists, there are some valid possible reasons, but also signs of insecurity--ridicule is a useful tool for those who don't have facts to back up their position.
Dr. Duane Gish has debated many evolutionists in his lifetime, and is said to have won most debates. I'd like an evolutionist review of that claim.

 

[Paradoxum]

I doubted evolution for a few weeks when I was a teenager, after reading an intelligent design book. So I suppose I should be sympathetic to some intelligent-designists. It can be easy to have a bias towards people 'on your side'.

Anyway, a friend pointed out the 'non-existent' transitional fossils to me; so then I could decide to accept the position of the majority of scientists (like I do in all other non-controversial issues), or accept the word of a few Christians. Considering Christianity has a bad past of rejecting science regardless of the facts, and science has a great record of uncovering the truth, and proving religious interpretations incorrect, science seems much safer.

I was very Christian at the time, but you can't deny that religion is great at creating anti-truth biases, and getting you to trust people you shouldn't be trusting.

I suspect that people don't want to debate creationists probably like they wouldn't want to debate geocentricists. There is no point in pretending there is much worth debating now.

One of the things that always pops into mind (as evidence) is the detour of the nerve to the voice box. That isn't good design, that's change over time:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You suggest reading 'Darwin's Doubt', but I wonder why you consider the author a trustworthy source of scientific information, considering he isn't a scientist.

There are a few short reasons here why people disagree with the book (if you wish to see): Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[essentialsaltes]

Dr. Duane Gish has debated many evolutionists in his lifetime, and is said to have won most debates. I'd like an evolutionist review of that claim.

The late Dr. Gish was an accomplished debater, but debate as a sport is a skill that does not depend on truth. I personally informed him of his errors regarding the second law of thermodynamics, and I know many other people also informed him of the same. But he never changed his presentation, because the version he presented in his debates was more effective, albeit untruthful.

 

[variant]

The only real debate on this issue is within the scientific community using published empirical data.

Religious purists lost that debate over a century ago, their rhetoric now is essentially meaningless.

Now they exist only as a blight on the scholarly community reminding us how stubborn people can be and do their damage mainly by trying to undermine school board elections.

 

[Gottservant]

Rhetoric is the language of the common genius, it will never lose its place.

The sooner pontificating scientists get with the cause of the common man, the sooner we will work out why they refuse to take a moral stance on anything.

Dreamers like variant think a stray schema will turn the world upside down and never be contradicted, only because they decided before they ever heard anything that whatever it was it had to soothe their itching ears.

Nothing soothes the desire for distraction like Evolution, but the idea that it is science and we should all bow down to it as truth is the beginning of a novel Darwin never got around to finishing.

 

[Lollerskates]

I notice posts on atheism and evolution get pretty long here, so I'll start another. I'd like to discuss whether Creationism is scientific, or why macro-evolution may be wrong. I've read The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins), and The First Chimpanzee, and find neither of them convincing. If anyone has a recommendation as to what you believe to be the best defense of evolutionism, I'll plan on reading it. In return, I'd suggest reading Darwin's Doubt.
As for why Dawkins and others won't debate creationists, there are some valid possible reasons, but also signs of insecurity--ridicule is a useful tool for those who don't have facts to back up their position.
Dr. Duane Gish has debated many evolutionists in his lifetime, and is said to have won most debates. I'd like an evolutionist review of that claim.

There is "scientific" justification for "creationism." Yes, I meant to use all those quotations. Creationism tends to be Genesis 1:1 - 2:3, plus the caveat of "the earth is 6000 years old." At least, that is what the common belief is.

I do not think the earth is 6000 years old; I believe it is older than "time" (Genesis 1:5.) I do believe that you do not need a sun to grow trees (ever heard of Grow Lamps?) I do not believe light is figurative - the light before the stars and sun was created. Light - even visible light - is a spectrum of seven different categories. I do not believe the ancients were dumb; they knew probably much more than we did - being handicapped by "technology" and "gadgets." I do think Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a concise summary of God's entire plan (in that order,) and Genesis 2:4 - the end of time is the actual living witness of that concise plan.

Creationism is/can be as complex as "evolution" - maybe more complex.

 

[Paradoxum]

Rhetoric is the language of the common genius, it will never lose its place.

The sooner pontificating scientists get with the cause of the common man, the sooner we will work out why they refuse to take a moral stance on anything.

What is the cause of common man? I don't know what that means. You don't think science has benefited people?

Also, I would think scientists would take a moral stance.

Dreamers like variant think a stray schema will turn the world upside down and never be contradicted, only because they decided before they ever heard anything that whatever it was it had to soothe their itching ears.

Nothing soothes the desire for distraction like Evolution, but the idea that it is science and we should all bow down to it as truth is the beginning of a novel Darwin never got around to finishing.

What has evolution got to do with soothing? I'd think the idea that a good God is in control would be more soothing. Though of course one can believe in God and accept evolution.

What is this 'bowing down' to evolution about? I accept the earth is round, but I don't know what it would mean to bow down that that.

 

[variant]

Rhetoric is the language of the common genius, it will never lose its place.

The sooner pontificating scientists get with the cause of the common man, the sooner we will work out why they refuse to take a moral stance on anything.

Dreamers like variant think a stray schema will turn the world upside down and never be contradicted, only because they decided before they ever heard anything that whatever it was it had to soothe their itching ears.

Nothing soothes the desire for distraction like Evolution, but the idea that it is science and we should all bow down to it as truth is the beginning of a novel Darwin never got around to finishing.

Rhetoric simply isn't important as to whether or not something is true.

It simply isn't worth debating a scientific theory when the data supports it.

Flowery language and rhetorical tricks can't make a false position true, they only make it SEEM true to people who are too lazy to consult the data directly.

The reason people such as yourself will decry doing the dirty work of scientific investigation to support your claims is because those studies could and would show you to be incorrect.

 

[juvenissun]

I notice posts on atheism and evolution get pretty long here, so I'll start another. I'd like to discuss whether Creationism is scientific, or why macro-evolution may be wrong. I've read The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins), and The First Chimpanzee, and find neither of them convincing. If anyone has a recommendation as to what you believe to be the best defense of evolutionism, I'll plan on reading it. In return, I'd suggest reading Darwin's Doubt.
As for why Dawkins and others won't debate creationists, there are some valid possible reasons, but also signs of insecurity--ridicule is a useful tool for those who don't have facts to back up their position.
Dr. Duane Gish has debated many evolutionists in his lifetime, and is said to have won most debates. I'd like an evolutionist review of that claim.

It is super easy for a Creationist to win a creation-evolution debate. Creation does not need any evidence of support. but evolution can not get enough evidences to support. Even evolutionist give 99 evidences, only the 1 unanswered question will thrown conclusion out. Why? it is very simple. A theory can not be proven by examples.

 

[Percivale]

I doubted evolution for a few weeks when I was a teenager, after reading an intelligent design book. So I suppose I should be sympathetic to some intelligent-designists. It can be easy to have a bias towards people 'on your side'.

Anyway, a friend pointed out the 'non-existent' transitional fossils to me; so then I could decide to accept the position of the majority of scientists (like I do in all other non-controversial issues), or accept the word of a few Christians. Considering Christianity has a bad past of rejecting science regardless of the facts, and science has a great record of uncovering the truth, and proving religious interpretations incorrect, science seems much safer.

I was very Christian at the time, but you can't deny that religion is great at creating anti-truth biases, and getting you to trust people you shouldn't be trusting.

I suspect that people don't want to debate creationists probably like they wouldn't want to debate geocentricists. There is no point in pretending there is much worth debating now.

One of the things that always pops into mind (as evidence) is the detour of the nerve to the voice box. That isn't good design, that's change over time:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You suggest reading 'Darwin's Doubt', but I wonder why you consider the author a trustworthy source of scientific information, considering he isn't a scientist.

There are a few short reasons here why people disagree with the book (if you wish to see): Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a bit of a stretch to say the author of Darwin's doubt is not a scientist, as his BA MA and PhD are all in science related fields.

While religion creates some biases and bigots, establishments of any sort, including science, have a tendency to reject new ideas and findings. Creation is in a similar position to where evolution was a century ago, and it's possible they'll trade places in popularity again, or that a synthesis may become the accepted belief of society and the establishment. I'm prepared to follow the truth whichever position it leads to, but I won't just follow the big names unless I see the evidence, and so far, I've seen the best creationists present a lot of hard facts, while evolutionists tend to give speculations and theories of how things could have happened more than hard evidence, and react to Creationism with ridicule, vitriol, or a priori rejection (circular reasoning); all of which look rather like insecurity. I may find different evidence in the future, and that's one reason I'm posting here. Often I find that the truth is somewhere between the extremes, and possibly that is true here too. Anyway, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God besides the problems with evolution, but that's another topic.

 

[variant]

It's a bit of a stretch to say the author of Darwin's doubt is not a scientist, as his BA MA and PhD are all in science related fields.

While religion creates some biases and bigots, establishments of any sort, including science, have a tendency to reject new ideas and findings. Creation is in a similar position to where evolution was a century ago, and it's possible they'll trade places in popularity again, or that a synthesis may become the accepted belief of society and the establishment. I'm prepared to follow the truth whichever position it leads to, but I won't just follow the big names unless I see the evidence, and so far, I've seen the best creationists present a lot of hard facts, while evolutionists tend to give speculations and theories of how things could have happened more than hard evidence, and react to Creationism with ridicule, vitriol, or a priori rejection (circular reasoning); all of which look rather like insecurity. I may find different evidence in the future, and that's one reason I'm posting here. Often I find that the truth is somewhere between the extremes, and possibly that is true here too. Anyway, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God besides the problems with evolution, but that's another topic.

First, it's not a new idea.

Second, to the extent that it is rejected by the scientific community it is done so because it doesn't take the subject seriously.

 

[Percivale]

First, it's not a new idea.

Second, to the extent that it is rejected by the scientific community it is done so because it doesn't take the subject seriously.

Both ideas, evolution and creation, are thousands of years old. They've switched places in acceptance by the scientific community several times. I don't believe the scientific community is infallible, I think it is composed of humans who are biased by the opinions of society and personal preferences, just like everyone else. Physical sciences focused on the present are demonstrable and certain in most cases, but others, that focus on the distant past, furnish less data, leaving more room for theorizing and uncertainty, so should not be preached with the same dogmatic certainty.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They've switched places in acceptance by the scientific community several times.

Not really.

 

[variant]

Both ideas, evolution and creation, are thousands of years old. They've switched places in acceptance by the scientific community several times.

They switched once over a hundred years ago.

I don't believe the scientific community is infallible, I think it is composed of humans who are biased by the opinions of society and personal preferences, just like everyone else. Physical sciences focused on the present are demonstrable and certain in most cases, but others, that focus on the distant past, furnish less data, leaving more room for theorizing and uncertainty, so should not be preached with the same dogmatic certainty.

Your position isn't relevant and hasn't been for over a hundred years.

If you want respect earn it by doing the science, because as I said, rhetoric is meaningless.

 

[Gottservant]

Rhetoric simply isn't important as to whether or not something is true.

Not directly. You are making a fool of yourself if you think that changes anything.

It simply isn't worth debating a scientific theory when the data supports it.

IF you are not prepared to do anything more, than be a fan of it.

Flowery language and rhetorical tricks can't make a false position true, they only make it SEEM true to people who are too lazy to consult the data directly.

The reason people such as yourself will decry doing the dirty work of scientific investigation to support your claims is because those studies could and would show you to be incorrect.

Except that you are not refering to PRINCIPLE and expect that "data" will get you off the hook.

It does not.

It doesn't matter what the data says, if you are not PRINCIPLED you are wasting time, valuable time.

Principles are approached through reason, and reason is explored through rhetoric.

Oh but you have data. Please.

 

[variant]

Not directly. You are making a fool of yourself if you think that changes anything.

It is foolish to confuse skillful rhetoric for truthfulness.

I am not doubting your claim that dubious rhetoricians can often hold sway with foolish people.

IF you are not prepared to do anything more, than be a fan of it.

I am pointing out that it is an absurd thing to do.

Except that you are not refering to PRINCIPLE and expect that "data" will get you off the hook.

It does not.

It doesn't matter what the data says, if you are not PRINCIPLED you are wasting time, valuable time.

Principles are approached through reason, and reason is explored through rhetoric.

Oh but you have data. Please.

You want to have a discussion about principles involving a scientific theory where honestly looking at data and evaluating what it leads us to is not one of them?

I'll pass.

 

[Gottservant]

It is foolish to confuse skillful rhetoric for truthfulness.

Yes, but just "examining data" is not truthfulness, if you think that you are deluded.

You want to have a discussion about principles involving a scientific theory where honestly looking at data and evaluating what it leads us to is not one of them?

I'll pass.

Except that you haven't stated what principle you are refering to, so once again you look like you are complaining by saying nothing. I'm sorry but that's laughable.

 

[jayem]

I notice posts on atheism and evolution get pretty long here, so I'll start another. I'd like to discuss whether Creationism is scientific

To me, Creationism is not scientific. I define true science as obligatorily naturalistic. Any explanation that invokes a supernatural entity is outside the realm of science.

But I admit I have a naturalistic viewpoint.

 

[Percivale]

To me, Creationism is not scientific. I define true science as obligatorily naturalistic. Any explanation that invokes a supernatural entity is outside the realm of science.

But I admit I have a naturalistic viewpoint.

That's what I mean by 'a priori arguments and circular reasoning.' I've been looking for evidence for evolution and keep finding this circular argument instead (it's the only one Dawkins uses in 'The Blind Watchmaker' when directly addressing creationism). Certainly scientists should look for natural explanations for all phenomena, but it does not follow that supernatural explanations are always false. Similarly, if we find a triangular rock, we should check if it would occur naturally, but not rule out the possibility that an Indian designed it long ago. Let's keep categories clear; there's a difference from something being outside the scope of science, and being disproved by science. It's one or the other, not both.
Some claims of creationism are outside science (at least in its present form, maybe someday we can scientifically test for the existence of spirits etc.), but their critiques of evolutionary theory, and the flood geology of Biblical creationists, are within the realm of science to refute.
I'm still hoping for a recommendation of a book that best provides the positive evidence that evolution occurred, or that creation did not (whether Biblical or progressive creation, I try to consider all possibilities).

 

[variant]

Yes, but just "examining data" is not truthfulness, if you think that you are deluded.

Deluded by careful examination of data? Interesting.

When I think of delusional people the first people that spring to mind aren't those who carefully study the world through controlled and rigorous testing.

Except that you haven't stated what principle you are refering to, so once again you look like you are complaining by saying nothing. I'm sorry but that's laughable.

Laugh all you like. I don't think you're capable of an insult that I'll take to heart.

Science being data driven is a pretty well understood principle, I'm sorry if you're having trouble keeping up.