["I said, in the case of a conflict between a well established observation and a religious text."]
Therein lies the rub, however. Evolution is not a "well-established observation". Evolution rests on circumstantial evidences from which it is deduced as an explanation. Neither evolution nor creation are, by their very nature, subject to empirical, verifiable, repeatable experimentation. To the extent that generational variation has occurred, it has been within type, not between type. We've simply no experimental evidence that fish become frogs become lizards.
["I have yet to see a single instance where scientists and religious folk duked it out over something and the religious folk were shown to be right. It's never, not once, happened."]
False, I've seen it happen. Back in the early 1990s, the hard-core, literal 7-day creationists like Duane Gish and Gary Parker were routinely engaged on university campuses across the country to debate with evolutionist professors, usually but not always on the university's staff. The creationists would crush the evolutionists most of the time. It happened here at the university where I got my degree (i.e. empirical observation). It was after several rounds of this that the evolutionists began the "we won't debate them because that will just given them undeserved credibility" line.
24 comments
I can imagine this debate.
Virtually by definition, a scientist is one who would change their mind if someone could present contradictory evidence (evidence being a substantial body of data and analysis and not a copy of the bible) and someone who will consider that their view could be wrong. Naively, a scientist would expect some sort of reasoned debate.
A creationist is one who has faith , that is, they continue to hold their view in the face of any volume of contradictory evidence. The more evidence, the better they are because they have more faith. Presenting a creationist with reasoned evidence just gives them something more to ignore or deliberately misinterpret. Irrationality is a virtue to this kind of Christian.
Do not try to argue rationally with them. Do not try to change their mind. Back away slowly. Or they will crush you.
Just because they are wrong, it doesn't mean you can win.
Fade to scary music.
Sure, they are so famous for debunking evolution that they, they ummm, what DID happen to those guys?
Gish propagated the abusurd "2nd law of thermodynamics" bullshit, and doesn't follow up with current science. He is happy in his little rut and he still gives the same lame argument.
The Gary Parker part is pure bullshit. He spoke to a college group ONCE back in '67.
You sir, are full of bull, shit.
And you're a liar. For that the precious, tiny, baby jesus will kick you in the nuts.
What a fuckwit. Evolution is pretty difficult to understand for those without a scientific background once you go beyond the basics. I can see how easily a debate could come to be dominated by a creationist appealing to the egos of those in the audience by presenting them with "facts" that fit nicely with Christianity. People want to feel good about their beliefs and intelligence, and if they're presented with evidence they don't understand, that goes against whatever religious beliefs they hold, even if those beliefs are weaker than American coffee, they're probably going to find it easier to dismiss that evidence in favour of good showmanship that "feels" right rather than makes sense.
This is why children should begin their education with strong maths and science instruction. It should also be mandatory to continue those classes throughout high school. It's far too easy to avoid all the hard stuff in favour of fluffier electives like music, drama and language.
Those weren't "debates," they were shows in which the creationist threw out bogus "facts" faster than any real scientist could refute them.
Now that scientists have given up on the expectation that creationists will play fair and have started anticipating their tactics, scientists are winning the debates.
"To the extent that generational variation has occurred, it has been within type, not between type."
What is a type? The creationists can't seem to tell us.
"The creationists would crush the evolutionists most of the time."
You must have missed the one where Morris said there are no monoclonius skulls with incipient eye horns and the biologist pulled out a book describing a monoclonius skull with incipient eye horns. Or the time Gish said bombadier beetle chemicals explode, so a chemist mixed bombadier beetle chemicals and they didn't explode. Or the time Gish said a homo erectus skull was from an ape so a member of the audience brought an ape skull up to the stage and everyone could see homo erectus was not an ape. Or the time a creationist inadvertantly proved the great pyramid of Egypt was built by 6 people. Or the time . . .
I fail to see how a creationist, whose entire argument is based on a self-authorizing book and a spiritual, mystical wonder at the complexity of reality could "crush" an evolutionist whose position is based on literal tons of evidence, observation, independantly confirmed research, fossil records, scientific methodology, etc.
Everything I have ever read on these so-called debates says the same thing, creationists throw out one tired straw man argument after another, faster than scientists can refute them. They bounce around from evolution, to abiogenesis, to astrophysics, and never stick to the topic at hand.
This only goes to show that you can't win an argument with an idiot, in this case a creationist.
He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Spoken debates mean nothing, as they are the best avenue for theatrics and style over substance bullshit. Written debates, via internet forums or email, for example, are the best way to reach an objective conclusion. That is how debates within the scientific community work. It's also why creationists like Kent Hovind refuse to debate their positions in a written debate.
In which alternative universe you´re living?, who can crush a well-supported argument, with loads of data to "the Bible says so"?, since when do snakes speak?
To above: It's quite easy actually. When someone with actual proof and... the basic ability to think argues with someone who pulls all their arguments either A: Out of their holy book, or B: their ass, the sheer crushing weight of idiocity will dissapointingly often prove victorious.
Let me guess how the debate went.
CREATIONIST: There is no evidence for evolution.
SCIENTIST: Here is evidence for evolution.
CREATIONIST: That doesn't prove anything.
Repeat Ad Nauseum, close with the creationist saying that god will send everyone who rejects creationism to hell.
I base this guess on the fact that all such debates go exactly the same way.
Point for point debates are still offered, on the internet even. So it would take little time and can be spread out over time for an even debate and allows back up links to all topics.
Creationists always refuse this method.
If Creationism is scientific, why aren't scientists using it to do research and advance our overall body of knowledge? The answer is simple:There is no science there. There is only seemingly immortal PRATTs, that do nothing to overcome us ahead. I went to a Fundamentalist Bible school for 4 years during my midterms. All I was taught there was typical Creationist drivel. Now,40 years later all the same tired, refuted claims are sill being paraded around as if they were se kind of ironclad refutation of established (real) science. In fact, I have written down around 15-20 of the most infamous ones (2nd Law of Thermodynamics, no transitional forms. Paluxy human/dino footprints,etc.) and played "Creationist Bingo" with them whenever I hear one of these yahoos present their "evidence". I almost never (>95%) get less than a perfect score.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.