The alternate debating creationists thread

[Resha Caner]

I thought this might get covered in other threads, but it appears it hasn't, so I'll launch something new.

When I saw the thread entitled, "Debating Creationists" I thought it might be interesting. The questions that popped into my head were: What are the goals of such debates? How do those goals differ from creationist goals? What techniques work with (are convincing to) creationists? What are the implications of not convincing creationists? etc.

Since those topics weren't covered, maybe we can discuss them here. And there might be other interesting categories as well: Christians in general, the spiritual in general ... and the opposite categories as well. A broad topic, I know. We'll just see where it goes.

 

[juvenissun]

I thought this might get covered in other threads, but it appears it hasn't, so I'll launch something new.

When I saw the thread entitled, "Debating Creationists" I thought it might be interesting. The questions that popped into my head were: What are the goals of such debates? How do those goals differ from creationist goals? What techniques work with (are convincing to) creationists? What are the implications of not convincing creationists? etc.

Since those topics weren't covered, maybe we can discuss them here. And there might be other interesting categories as well: Christians in general, the spiritual in general ... and the opposite categories as well. A broad topic, I know. We'll just see where it goes.

People want to debate creationist because they think they can humiliate creationist by a lot scientific data. But they forgot one fundamental fact: data are not proofs. Their goal is not achievable according to the simplest logic rule.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Resha Caner]

People want to debate creationist because they think they can humiliate creationist by a lot scientific data.

Yes, I suspect some enjoy ridiculing creationists. It often seems that way. Still others simply enjoy "yo mama" joking.

But I don't think all have that same agenda.

 

[KCfromNC]

I thought this might get covered in other threads, but it appears it hasn't, so I'll launch something new.

When I saw the thread entitled, "Debating Creationists" I thought it might be interesting. The questions that popped into my head were: What are the goals of such debates? How do those goals differ from creationist goals? What techniques work with (are convincing to) creationists? What are the implications of not convincing creationists? etc.

Since creationism is a political movement with the general goal being to sneak religion onto unsuspecting captive children, I'd say most of the debate is to discredit it to avoid unnecessarily entangling the government with conservative Protestant religious mythology.

I doubt you're going to convince most creationists to change their mind. The goal is to show that creationism has no place being forcibly taught to other people's children.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since creationism is a political movement with the general goal being to sneak religion onto unsuspecting captive children, I'd say most of the debate is to discredit it to avoid unnecessarily entangling the government with conservative Protestant religious mythology.

I doubt you're going to convince most creationists to change their mind. The goal is to show that creationism has no place being forcibly taught to other people's children.

Rephrased, I could agree with you:
1) Some creationists want to teach their beliefs to those who would not otherwise hear it, and they have adopted politcal means.
2) Those opposed feel public schools are not the place for teaching those ideas.

In response, a few questions:
1) You say the mind of most creationists can't be changed. For those you think can be changed, should the attempt be made? Why?
2) For those whose mind can't be changed, what is the implication: both to you and to them?

 

[bhsmte]

Rephrased, I could agree with you:
1) Some creationists want to teach their beliefs to those who would not otherwise hear it, and they have adopted politcal means.
2) Those opposed feel public schools are not the place for teaching those ideas.

In response, a few questions:
1) You say the mind of most creationists can't be changed. For those you think can be changed, should the attempt be made? Why?
2) For those whose mind can't be changed, what is the implication: both to you and to them?

Excuse me while I jump in.

Ideology typically rules the day with creationists, for obvious reasons. Sticking with an ideology can be quite important to some, even when it means ignoring all sorts of evidence that goes the other way. For some, they have so much emotional currency invested in their ideology, they will never be changed and will only rely on powerful psychological defense mechanisms to hold onto their belief, while trying desperately to discredit any evidence that goes against them.

Others, may in fact change their mind, but they will do so when it is their idea and on their own time and most likely never admit a change in a forum like this.

 

[andy b]

whats funny is the more i look into evolution and the athesist viewpoint the more holes i see in it and the more i look into the creationist viewpoint the same thing applies has anyone got a third option l

 

[variant]

whats funny is the more i look into evolution and the athesist viewpoint the more holes i see in it and the more i look into the creationist viewpoint the same thing applies has anyone got a third option l

Evolution isn't an atheist viewpoint.

 

[juvenissun]

Since creationism is a political movement with the general goal being to sneak religion onto unsuspecting captive children, I'd say most of the debate is to discredit it to avoid unnecessarily entangling the government with conservative Protestant religious mythology.

I doubt you're going to convince most creationists to change their mind. The goal is to show that creationism has no place being forcibly taught to other people's children.

Why not?
I am a creationist now. I was forced to learn evolution in my first 30 years. And I learned it very very very well.
What are you afraid of?

 

[quatona]

When I saw the thread entitled, "Debating Creationists" I thought it might be interesting. The questions that popped into my head were:

Assuming that by "Creationists" you mean the "YEC"- or "God created the world pretty much as it is today"-sort:

What are the goals of such debates?

Personally, the best reason I can think of is pretty similar to the reason for watching a car accident. That´s why I abstain from debating these ideas.

How do those goals differ from creationist goals?

I don´t know what "creationist goals" are.

What techniques work with (are convincing to) creationists?

None that I would be willing to use, I think.

What are the implications of not convincing creationists?

They remain unconvinced.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ideology typically rules the day with creationists, for obvious reasons. Sticking with an ideology can be quite important to some, even when it means ignoring all sorts of evidence that goes the other way.

Let me help you out a bit here. You have a kernel of an idea, but it's phrased in a dogmatic manner that obscures understanding. A more neutral phrasing would be: Theology is important to creationists, and it means they interpret data in a different way.

Maybe try reading, "Are Creationists Rational?" by John S. Wilkins. He still says a few things that poke the beast, but I think he's making an honest attempt at an objective view, so it might help you.

 

[Resha Caner]

... has anyone got a third option

I agree, and I'm working on it*, but the details are a topic for a different thread.

With respect to this thread, I'll mention that aside from the political motive already mentioned I think one creationist motive is comfort - reassurance that their faith is not in error. If that is the motive, I think debating with evolutionists is a bad thing. I think there are much better ways of receiving comfort that have nothing to do with science.

* I should clarify that it's just a hobby. I'm not claiming any grand scheme here.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why not?
I am a creationist now. I was forced to learn evolution in my first 30 years. And I learned it very very very well.
What are you afraid of?

This is an interesting point. I don't think it will be convincing to any evolutionists, but just between us girls it's an interesting point. When I took biology, I struggled with how to answer test questions. I finally adopted the method of prefacing answers with: According to evolutionary theory, ...

It was something I came up with on my own, but I've since found out others did the same thing. It demonstrates competence in the subject without assenting.

So why shouldn't children of other beliefs have to demonstrate understanding as well? I know what the answer will be, but it's an interesting point.

 

[Resha Caner]

They remain unconvinced.

And?

 

[juvenissun]

This is an interesting point. I don't think it will be convincing to any evolutionists, but just between us girls it's an interesting point. When I took biology, I struggled with how to answer test questions. I finally adopted the method of prefacing answers with: According to evolutionary theory, ...

It was something I came up with on my own, but I've since found out others did the same thing. It demonstrates competence in the subject without assenting.

So why shouldn't children of other beliefs have to demonstrate understanding as well? I know what the answer will be, but it's an interesting point.

I was an atheist when I learned evolution. Until I got my PhD, I did not know what creationism is. But I accepted creationism pretty fast after that. Why? Because I was very unsatisfied with the theory of evolution. Evolution presents some speculated systematic studies. But it leaves tooooo many unanswered questions. I cannot live my life with so many critical questions unanswered.

 

[bhsmte]

I was an atheist when I learned evolution. Until I got my PhD, I did not know what creationism is. But I accepted creationism pretty fast after that. Why? Because I was very unsatisfied with the theory of evolution. Evolution presents some speculated systematic studies. But it leaves tooooo many unanswered questions. I cannot live my life with so many critical questions unanswered.

And where did you find the answers to those questions?

 

[quatona]

And?

And what?

 

[juvenissun]

And where did you find the answers to those questions?

The Bible.

Scientists usually find answer of hard question at place seemingly unrelated to the question. That is exactly true.

 

[bhsmte]

Let me help you out a bit here. You have a kernel of an idea, but it's phrased in a dogmatic manner that obscures understanding. A more neutral phrasing would be: Theology is important to creationists, and it means they interpret data in a different way.

Maybe try reading, "Are Creationists Rational?" by John S. Wilkins. He still says a few things that poke the beast, but I think he's making an honest attempt at an objective view, so it might help you.

Well, I base my words on experience is reading what creationists have to say on these boards and the tactics they use to debate.

Also, I completely understand how most creationists think and that is also obvious in the tactics they use to protect their position.