Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

[Kevin Snow]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

 

[JIMINZ]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

They don't want or seek resolution through discussion, they want to have a continual Debate, without ever resolving anything.

 

[Kylie]

What discussions have you been reading? I've seen evolutionists (I hate to use the word, but...) telling the creationists why their arguments are wrong.

 

[pitabread]

The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand.

This goes both ways. I've lost count of the number of times I've been preached at and/or threatened with damnation while posting here.

 

[pitabread]

What discussions have you been reading? I've seen evolutionists (I hate to use the word, but...) telling the creationists why their arguments are wrong.

Oh, it definitely happens. I've been guilty on a number of occasions of attacking the poster (usually via questioning their motivation) rather than purely dealing with the arguments.

I've also been on the receiving end of the same from a number of creationist posters here.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I think it comes out of frustration. Deflection, misrepresentation, refusal to even acknowledge the evidence being presented... It starts to get to you. You know you should just walk away, but would you just walk away from someone intentionally misrepresenting your position to others? I bet you don't which is probably why you're even on this forum. I don't doubt that you believe your position to be correct and closest to the "Truth." The difference is the evolutionists have all this evidence for what we're presenting and it looks like the creationists are sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling, "la, la, la! I can't hear you!" And then the preaching starts, even to fellow Christians which is actually quite amusing to me, personally.

So, yeah.

 

[Speedwell]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

The title you chose for this thread should give you a clue. You'arbitrarily divided the field into "evolutionists" and "theists." Many "evolutionists" are also theists, Christians in fact--and that is the source of a good deal of the bickering about who is a real Christian and who is not.

There is, in any case, there is no "common understanding" to make progress toward. Either the Book of Genesis is 100% accurate literal history or it's not. If it is, then evolution is a lie from the Pit of Hell. If it is not, then evolution doesn't pose a problem for believers in the Word of God, and more probable causes for the lamentable secularization can be examined.

 

[Strathos]

What discussions have you been reading? I've seen evolutionists (I hate to use the word, but...) telling the creationists why their arguments are wrong.

I have seen a lot of what the OP is talking about actually.

 

[Strathos]

What discussions have you been reading? I've seen evolutionists (I hate to use the word, but...) telling the creationists why their arguments are wrong.

EDIT: Double post

 

[Ana the Ist]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

Well, to be fair, from what I've seen there is often a difference in the level of understanding between the two people debating. This sometimes needs to be overcome before anyone can proceed.

For example, if the "evolutionist" is talking about some kind of evidence, and what that evidence means, and why its evidence...you might see the creationist respond that "it isn't evidence" because it doesn't show what the creationist thinks it should....

If it genuinely is evidence....then it does no good to continue talking about the evidence. The problem is that the creationist doesn't understand some fundamental aspect of the evidence, or really understand what evidence is, or what it means...

If that's the case, then the debate will go nowhere unless the creationist is corrected.

 

[Shemjaza]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

I think there are a number of posters who will never acknowledge any posts that respond or counter their assertions or beliefs... even after years and years. In that context I can see why people would get frustrated and simply point out that they are being dishonest or disingenuous rather then putting in wasted effort again.

Also, if people start their posting with blatantly wrong or insulting posts I can see why people don't treat a very common lie as if it were a brand new heart-felt request for honest discussion.

 

[dabaa]

cuz that is the main aim of it.

 

[Brightmoon]

Mainly it’s because creationists have their own pseudoscience version of evolution that mainstream scientists DO NOT use. As long as creationists misuse scientific terminology you’re going to get an annoyed response from someone who understands mainstream science. Calling any science or history ,atheistic is a dead giveaway that the person using that term doesn’t understand either science or history

 

[Abraxos]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

Shoving the truth down peoples throat, isn't an approach I'd recommend.
There is a certain limit people can take, and you'll be more effective if you give them a little bit that they can swallow today, and a little bit more, instead of overwhelming them with things, that it would get to a point where they cannot tolerate it. People are socially conditioned and brainwashed to believe in the evolutionary theory, and you are breaking down their beliefs, their paradigms; it is very hard for a person to experience because their perceptions of reality and their life is structured upon their belief system.

So when you start to debunk and destabilize this foundation when it comes to their beliefs, you're going to put them in a very vulnerable psychological position. So just keep that all in mind when you sharing truth with people.

:]

 

[Nithavela]

One of the main reasons why I have stopped posting in this forum is that nothing ever gets resolved. It's been the same discussion with the same points for over a decade and both sides are completely entrenched in their position. From time to time, one of the sides quotes a study they feel supports their views and the other side either tries to discredit that study or just puts their fingers in their ears.

It's just so boring.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand.

Odd, that's not what I see. Do you have an example of this?

If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end?

We can.

But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that.

Could you give an example of this? Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on what is perceived to be going on in these conversations?

If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

Agreed - although, on matters of science,you'd need to stick to the scientific method - I would imagine this is the issue you might be encountering, not that anyone is attacking anyone personally rather than the issue...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

and you might want to change the topic title to something more appropriate, like:

Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Creationist and Not the Discussion?

 

[Brightmoon]

The “truth” as abraxos called it unfortunately for him is not actually true. Evolution is a very well confirmed process . Occurring within a species level ( microevolution) which creationists tend to accept ( because they can’t deny it any longer like they used to 30 years ago) and macroevolution, which is just speciation ,which they tend to deny occurs . Creationists pretend that this doesn’t occur even though most scientifically literate laymen can actually give the common names of species that have recently evolved into another species .

And creationists will twist the scientific terminology - conflating adaptation and evolution, for example. They’ll also generate meaningless terms like specified complexity , “kind “or Baramin. When they complain about a specific species like the peppered moth, they get the details wrong and these are the professional creationists doing this. The only thing creationists offer as “science“ are lies , deliberate obfuscation, and stupid mistakes. Mainstream scientists ignore creation “scientists “ because they’re either incompetent or they’re lying.

And if you tell a non professional creationist that this type of disinformation is rampant within creationist circles, then they’ll call you an atheist, even if you aren’t . Even more importantly, religious beliefs have nothing to do with confirmed scientific facts .

 

[Shadow]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect that science acts as an authority and, even if our understanding of how evolution works is limited, we still accept it. We usually aren't scientists or biology graduates with a detailed knowledge to build on but accept what has been repeated to us by adults, school, the media, etc. To really engage with creationism means having to get past the trained reaction of thinking it is "absurd" or "nonsensical" based on the assumption it is impossible and couldn't ever happen that way. For example, it is hard to keep a straight face when confronted with the banana as an example of intelligent design even if your willing to concede he may have a point.

It is therefore easier to challenge the authority of a creationist by arguing their belief is illegitimate, than to actually look at the arguments. This is particularly true if the debate gets reduced down to a "faith versus facts" situation as that usually ignores the middle ground between evolutionary and creation positions such as old-earth creation, natural theology and enlightenment deism where science and religion are- at least in theory- compatible. I think if you can get the discussion away from young-earth creationism over the account of creation in the book of genesis and have someone willing to go in that direction you are more likely to get somewhere because it won't rely on the authority of scripture as the word of god. To reach a common understanding, you need a common source for that understanding and atheists aren't going to accept the bible as evidence. It really depends on the methods you are using to decide how we "know" something and how we "know" the origin of species, nature and the universe more generally.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the majority of people who use the internet are already convinced of their own views and the most vocal and active members are usually going to be the most rigid in their positions. It is not automatically the case, but if you are someone who is looking for the challenge of debating online you probably already feel very confident in what you are saying before hand and aren't likely to change your mind. Even if a debate can make a dent in a person's convictions, such as by presenting new arguments that they haven't heard before, you are still relying on people being intellectually (and emotionally) honest enough to concede that. It can take alot of time for someone to change their mind and online debates are generally a very small time frame or window in to what people are thinking and how it might develop in the long-run.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

People are socially conditioned and brainwashed to believe in the evolutionary theory, and you are breaking down their beliefs, their paradigms;

Here is a perfect example of the sort of nonsense that riles "evolutionists". Nobody is "brainwashed to believe in the evolutionary theory", and you know it. If you can't be honest in your arguments expect to be attacked for your dishonesty.