Ship of Fools: YECs - to debate or not?

Thread: YECs - to debate or not? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030721

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" is going to have a debate with Ken Ham on the subject of evolution and creationism. Nye presumably hopes to introduce a large, science-shaped cluebat to the heads of a few YECs in the audience, but the AiG article reads as if this debate is exactly what they want to raise the profile of their nutty ideas. It's worth noting that Ham has refused to debate with many other people in the past, but that could conceivably admit more than one explanation.

I've set out my concerns in detail on my blog, but in summary:

Science is a matter of painstaking investigation, not a quick chat. If Ham thinks the evidence supports his views, he's welcome to publish peer-reviewed research
A debate only reliably shows who has the snappier soundbites or sounds convincing, and as Duane Gish demonstrated, a total absence of evidence is no hindrance in that department
Apart from being the wrong medium for the exchange of views, this risks giving YECs an aura of credibility and respectability
Between Ham's blather, Confirmation Bias and the Backfire Effect, any YECs in the audience are likely to end up more certain of their position than they were before

I can see arguments in favour as well - taking on known lies, bringing proper science to people who've been indoctrinated to this point, showing that we're not running scared - but they all rely on other people to act rationally, and they don't explain why this has to be done in the form of a debate, which is a poor way of conducting science, even without the involvement of a YEC who considers reality to be a liberal conspiracy.

In this particular case or any other, is there any point in debating like this, or is it just playing into the YECs' hands?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I've given up all engagement with YECism; it's utterly pointless. It's only when my FFS level overcomes my better judgement that I find myself addressing their codswallop.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I agree, that it's pointless. Also, a skillful debater can produce a kind of illusion of cleverness and knowledge, and the Gish Gallop technique can do this.

Scientific research does not proceed in this manner. If creationists have something serious to present, then do it via peer-reviewed publication.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The footsoldiers are amenable, sometimes. The generals, never - they have too much at stake to ever let their guard down in public.

Private conversations are much better than in the glare of the TV cameras.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I agree, that it's pointless. Also, a skillful debater can produce a kind of illusion of cleverness and knowledge, and the Gish Gallop technique can do this.

In fact, even this isn't strictly necessary. Experimental evidence has shown repeatedly that a single pithy claim sticks better in the mind and is more persuasive than a detailed debunking of that same claim. All any YEC has to to is regurgitate some old PRATT about the benefit of half an eye or half a wing, and he'll probably be considered to have won even after his arguments have been reduced to smouldering rubble.

I think Doc Tor has the right idea, in engaging on a different level. Debates like this signal confrontation, making it a matter of identity, and entrenching positions. Even the audience will roll up wanting to have their existing position bolstered. But if a small concession by a single person can be sneaked through on a more friendly level, that's something that can be built on, until the cognitive dissonance reaches uncomfortable levels. Maybe.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In this particular case or any other, is there any point in debating like this, or is it just playing into the YECs' hands?

Hmm, tough question, Mr Gumby! I agree with you that the debate format is not great for detailed consideration of scientific ideas but then if scientists refuse to engage in this kind of way, they're accused of running scared and not having the courage of their convictions.

Maybe a back-and-forth in writing would be more helpful, so the use of rhetorical techniques (which most scientists would shun, at least I assume!) is minimised and there might be a more measured examination of the various claims made (made by both sides).

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Debates in writing on this topic result in the C. side producing a series of assertions, each one line long, which each take several paragraphs or more to properly examine and answer. In other words, the Gish Gallop translates easily into writing.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Debates in writing on this topic result in the C. side producing a series of assertions, each one line long, which each take several paragraphs or more to properly examine and answer. In other words, the Gish Gallop translates easily into writing.

But at least in writing you can provide links or point people towards more detailed material on the various issues, to show that there are rebuttals for each of the one-line assertions. Then each reader can check out the further details on the issues that trouble them, and skip over the issues they're not fussed about.

Whereas in a debate, if someone gives a series of one-liners, you might be struck by just one or two of them but still then be left with doubts if those specific points aren't addressed properly.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think in writing, many creationist claims fall apart. For example, I have taken part in discussions on their use of 'kind', which seems to mean variously species, genus, family, and who knows what else, but it was quite clear that the creationist side were equivocating like mad. But in a spoken debate, they can move on quickly to something else, and appear to have escaped criticism.

But it's peer-reviewed material which really counts, and I know that some creationists have a kind of conspiracy theory here, that their work is not accepted in scientific journals. Well, yes, there are good reasons for that, namely that they don't follow standard scientific methods.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I've never met a real-life YEC.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've never met a real-life YEC.

I'm American and was taught in Sunday School at the "Bible-based" conservative church my family attended, that dinosaur fossils were placed by God as a test to our faith.

I never believed it myself and even as a child that struck me as making absolutely no sense at all.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But at least in writing you can provide links or point people towards more detailed material on the various issues, to show that there are rebuttals for each of the one-line assertions. Then each reader can check out the further details on the issues that trouble them, and skip over the issues they're not fussed about.

ISTM, the Internet proves writing is not inherently more effective.
The best public debate setting is having a limited scope and a good moderator.
But really, you can drain Loch Ness but the Monster will still be seen.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, the internet produces some exotic stuff, as it has enabled every amateur and hobbyist in the world to vent their stuff, whereas before they would have written furious scrawls in green ink. See all the conspiracy theories on-line.

Well, this is also OK, democracy in action. But groups like creationists have taken to the internet like ducks to water, since they can produce reams of nonsense, with no constraints. Think of an echo-chamber.

Hence, back to peer-reviewed publications in serious journals - that is the way to go.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Debates in writing on this topic result in the C. side producing a series of assertions, each one line long, which each take several paragraphs or more to properly examine and answer. In other words, the Gish Gallop translates easily into writing.
But at least in writing you can provide links or point people towards more detailed material on the various issues, to show that there are rebuttals for each of the one-line assertions. Then each reader can check out the further details on the issues that trouble them, and skip over the issues they're not fussed about.

Whereas in a debate, if someone gives a series of one-liners, you might be struck by just one or two of them but still then be left with doubts if those specific points aren't addressed properly.

And yet, a nonsensical one-line claim is far more effective and persuasive than the detailed and accurate rebuttal. It's true in text or speech. And then there's the magic reset button beloved of all kinds of internet quacks and loonies - the one they press once you move onto a different topic, to restore factory settings for their particular flavour of nuttiness. Then before you know it, you're back at square one.

If they think a scientific theory is flawed, they're welcome to provide peer-reviewed evidence to support that belief. That's fundamental to how science works. Once they've done that, just demonstrating the vaguest glimmer of genuine controversy, maybe there might be something worth debating. Until then, engaging like this only seems to benefit one side.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, it always reminds me of the old joke about wrestling with a pig - you end up covered in shit, and the pig loves it. (From Shaw I think).

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

And this particular pig will indeed love being in the limelight.

A major goal of the YEC movement -- especially in its highly politicized variants in the USA -- is precisely to have their ideas debated on equal terms in a scientific arena. This is clear in those states where there is pressure to include creationism in textbooks as a valid, scientifically plausible alternative to science itself.

I assume that there are people who actually believe this stuff. It's the political agenda (in the US; perhaps not elsewhere) that disturbs me most, however.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

After seeing Bill Nye's stint on Dancing with the Stars, I've come to suspect he is an attention whore. I'm not at all certain he is trying to convince anyone who isn't already convinced--I'm rather suspicious he's doing it for the attention.

That means both sides will get what they want out of this fiasco, but neither the cause of science nor the cause of religion will be helped.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I think there is a fundamental issue at the heart of the peer review process, in the sense that even if there was some truth in Young Earth Creationism it is very unlikely that anything of that ilk would get published in a reputable journal. Of course, most scientists will accept this is because the creationists are incapable of stringing an argument together which makes sense.

But there is a deeper argument - if there is a mountain of study, and argument built up, you're going to need a mountain of argument to knock it down - which is very unlikely to ever happen on the fundamental level at which the creationists disagree with the scientists.

Also I suspect the journal editors are quite adept at rather rapidly deleting papers from the usual suspects before they even get sent to reviewers. There is an inbuilt inertia within them to utterly outrageous ideas which aim to overthrow their very existence.

But then the creationists know even this, and will obviously portray this as bias against the truth. So the scientists can't possibly win.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think it's simpler than that: creationism isn't scientific.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Unfortunately, some people aren't either.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

This will be one of those non-events which allows everyone to feel superior without changing a single mind. It's really just mental masturbation.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I think it's simpler than that: creationism isn't scientific.

And, strictly speaking, neither is the entirely naturalistic explanation for life and the universe.

If the only admissible theory has to conform a priori to the philosophy of naturalism, then it follows that such a theory is ipso facto unfalsifiable. Ergo unscientific.

There is no reason why the universe cannot be dependent on dimensions of reality, which transcend empirical investigation. QM implies this, after all.

Of course, that is not YEC, but it certainly gives credence to ID in general terms.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I think it's simpler than that: creationism isn't scientific.
And, strictly speaking, neither is the entirely naturalistic explanation for life and the universe.

If the only admissible theory has to conform a priori to the philosophy of naturalism, then it follows that such a theory is ipso facto unfalsifiable. Ergo unscientific.

There is no reason why the universe cannot be dependent on dimensions of reality, which transcend empirical investigation. QM implies this, after all.

Of course, that is not YEC, but it certainly gives credence to ID in general terms.

Scientific work does not conform to the philosophy of naturalism, but the methodology of naturalism. That is, it observes and describes nature, but does not proclaim, 'there is only nature'.

This is a common source of confusion, for some reason; but for example, scientism is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical one, as is also scientific realism.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A coincidental, but sadly related, article.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think there is a fundamental issue at the heart of the peer review process, in the sense that even if there was some truth in Young Earth Creationism it is very unlikely that anything of that ilk would get published in a reputable journal. ...

But there is a deeper argument - if there is a mountain of study, and argument built up, you're going to need a mountain of argument to knock it down - which is very unlikely to ever happen on the fundamental level at which the creationists disagree with the scientists.

Actually I think you'll find that the biggest issue is one of scope. The vast majority of journals have a very narrow scope, they publish articles in one, usually small, part of science. In addition, journal articles are short, they address one particular point, identify a problem somewhere or present data that helps to explain something. So, a YECcie could write a good paper giving evidence why a particular fossil is something different from what it had been described as and an appropriate journal would accept it. But, the editors and referees would take a conclusion that "therefore the entire process of identifying fossils in evolutionary sequences is flawed" as going beyond the evidence presented in the paper supports. An approach that would work, if the evidence supported it, would be to publish a sequence of papers identifying flaws in fossil identification. When several such papers are produced then a review article drawing broader conclusions could be written and if the cumulative effect of the prior publications is sufficient to support a scientifically controversial conclusion the paper should be published - although the peer-review process would then kick-in in full force with a flurry of articles in response, new work to try to demonstrate this controversial conclusion is wrong etc.

Of course, I don't for a second believe any YECcies could write such a review article, because I don't believe that they can create enough examples of problems that they can undermine the theory of evolution. But, in principle at least, they could identify particular problems with some parts of accepted science, and get their work examining such issues published.

quote:
Also I suspect the journal editors are quite adept at rather rapidly deleting papers from the usual suspects before they even get sent to reviewers.

Having been asked to review some really awful work, I'm not so confident of the ability of editors. Most I suspect don't even necessarily read the papers that cross their desk, a quick skim of key-words and maybe the abstract and cross-reference the apparent subject with potential referees ... and when the authors suggest referees anyway, well, that's an easy place to start.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Yes, you explained that better than I could, Alan.

And you are right, there is a lot of rubbish which gets sent to reviewers, and unfortunately a lot of rubbish which eventually gets published - some of which is later retracted.

I still think that papers sent by Ken Ham and his mates are almost inevitably going to immediately line the bin of any serious journal editor.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:

I still think that papers sent by Ken Ham and his mates are almost inevitably going to immediately line the bin of any serious journal editor.

The most polite reply I can think of is The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've never met a real-life YEC.

You're lucky.
One who turned up and derailed a Darwin centenary lecture day at Darwin College Canterbury, whom I had met while running a school chess club.
One doing Science 101 at summer school with the OU - "I will give the answers I need to pass" (Actually, one of the tutors might have been, as well.)
One who turns up at nearly all the folk clubs I have tried, and sings about Piltdown as though it disproves something.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
One who turns up at nearly all the folk clubs I have tried, and sings about Piltdown as though it disproves something.

Well, it could. Singing about Piltdown could disprove the "I have a handle on reality" hypothesis!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm American and was taught in Sunday School at the "Bible-based" conservative church my family attended, that dinosaur fossils were placed by God as a test to our faith.

I never believed it myself and even as a child that struck me as making absolutely no sense at all.

And here I thought God kills babies, created despicable diseases, and like famines and death by starvation as tests of faith, but really all it took was dino fossils.

Of course I am one of the school of thought that thought nipples on men and misplaced clitori (or is the plural clitorises?) was the proof: Link to pdf "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1991

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
And you are right, there is a lot of rubbish which gets sent to reviewers, and unfortunately a lot of rubbish which eventually gets published - some of which is later retracted.

Publication and retraction is still part of peer-review. It's a mistake to limit peer-review to just the anonymous (supposedly - though in a small field it's often easy to identify who the referees are) review of journal articles. There is review of research proposals even before the work starts. There is discussion of preliminary results with colleagues. There are conference presentations and subsequent questioning (great for pre-empting what a journal reviewer will ask!). Then after publication there's work that cites the article (or, not - an uncited paper says a lot about what your peers think of it!).

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've never met a real-life YEC.
You're lucky.
One who turned up and derailed a Darwin centenary lecture day at Darwin College Canterbury, whom I had met while running a school chess club.
One doing Science 101 at summer school with the OU - "I will give the answers I need to pass" (Actually, one of the tutors might have been, as well.)
One who turns up at nearly all the folk clubs I have tried, and sings about Piltdown as though it disproves something.

Heh. Every folk club seems to have someone like that. Ours (mostly people somewhere to the left of Leon Rosselson*) has one guy who mostly sings completely incomprehensible songs he thinks are philosophical, and occasionally something completely reactionary. You could have cut the air with a knife after his four minute musical exposition of why domestic violence is usually the woman's fault, coming hot on the heels of his song about how 30 year old teachers should be allowed to run off with their 15 year old pupils. No-one knew where to look.

Somehow I get away with the occasional Martyn Joseph.

*For those who don't know, he makes Billy Bragg sound like the Daily Heil.

[/Tangent]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm American and was taught in Sunday School at the "Bible-based" conservative church my family attended, that dinosaur fossils were placed by God as a test to our faith.

I never believed it myself and even as a child that struck me as making absolutely no sense at all.
And here I thought God kills babies, created despicable diseases, and like famines and death by starvation as tests of faith, but really all it took was dino fossils.

Of course I am one of the school of thought that thought nipples on men and misplaced clitori (or is the plural clitorises?) was the proof: Link to pdf "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1991

This is of course the basic problem with ID. Because "goddidit" can explain anything, it actually explains bugger all. There is no observation that you couldn't put down to the inscrutability of a free intelligent creator, although some raise eyebrows (I wouldn't, personally, have made the airway and the alimentary canal cross each other and require a sort of traffic light controlled junction, unless I needed to be able to make people choke and die), so by the same token there's no observation that can make you say "Ah! There must be an intelligent creator!", because any observation is compatible with said creator.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Karl, our guy is actually nice as a person, and does good things, so after an attempt to argue, and pointing out that his song would work better if he omitted the works of Charles Dawson, I withdrew. I did continue on a website, but he is deep in the YEC bubble, and unreachable.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Many Creationists are hosts for Morton's Demon (qv)

I got nearly banned from another forum for mentioning Morton's Demon - point thoroughly missed by the mods who thought I was accusing another member of being demon-possessed [Roll Eyes]

Projection, I call it.

Years later, a few months ago, I paid another visit. A few new faces on the creationist side, a few new scientists, but the same old arguments.

[ 08. January 2014, 21:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Individual interaction on a one to one level with YECs can work reasonably well, IME. The idea that you can have a staged debate between truth and falsity in which truth will win out is an illusion stubbornly adhered to by Anglo-Saxon peoples with about the same amount of empirical underpinning as YEC.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thanks for that - I have just spent a few minutes looking that demon up on Wikipedia. My local victim accused me of having been educated only to see what supported evolution. He did acknowledge that I could say the same, in reverse, of him. (I suggested he went and studied the rather nice turbidites outside M&S in the shopping centre, and contemplate the purity of the Chalk outside, and the depth of it, and the hardgrounds and the burrowing heart urchins, but I doubt he did.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've never met a real-life YEC.

I know someone who is, for the most part, an entirely sensible, rational human being, who nevertheless firmly believes that man really did walk with the dinosaurs.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Karl wrote:

This is of course the basic problem with ID. Because "goddidit" can explain anything, it actually explains bugger all. There is no observation that you couldn't put down to the inscrutability of a free intelligent creator, although some raise eyebrows (I wouldn't, personally, have made the airway and the alimentary canal cross each other and require a sort of traffic light controlled junction, unless I needed to be able to make people choke and die), so by the same token there's no observation that can make you say "Ah! There must be an intelligent creator!", because any observation is compatible with said creator.

Yes, exactly right. There are no constraints.

I remember asking a creationist about island species, which often tend to be unusual or different from the mainland, and I asked him how he thought this arose, and he said, 'Because it pleased God to do so'.

Yes, brilliant. But here there are absolutely no limits. In a sense, God seems to be arbitrary or capricious in this view.

Whereas evolutionary theory would explain island species in terms of geographical isolation - see for example, Darwin's finches.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are no constraints.

Bingo.
YEC is functionally no different to Bigfoot, Ancient Aliens or Government Conspiracies.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

On the other hand, the point of debate rarely has much to do with the debaters; it's the audience that matters.

Assuming a bell curve of spectators/auditors taking in this debate, there will be the usual unswayables at each end of the curve, and a bubble in the middle. Some in the bubble may be persuadable -- though I wouldn't take any bets on which side they'll buy into.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Yes, but the perception of who "wins" a debate is based more on perception than the validity of statement. So your bubble people may be swayed by other than real information.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've never met a real-life YEC.

I know a few - sadly they are the leading lights in the youth work in church - total stranglehold over it

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

My first argument when addressing real life creationists is: "does God lie?" and pointing out that creating a world that appeared to every conceivable observation to be older than it is, would be a lie given solid form. I've rarely had a coherent response to that one, and it has the advantage of approaching the question from a theological point rather than purely scientific.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I still think that papers sent by Ken Ham and his mates are almost inevitably going to immediately line the bin of any serious journal editor.

Which is not the right approach, IMHO.

There's a real danger in dismissing any and every paper just because of its source, or because you think that it's part of some wider agenda that you don't agree with. A paper on a particular issue may in fact turn out to be RIGHT on that particular issue.

The reason I say this is partly because of a couple of fairly infamous examples within the scientific community of people being dismissed purely and simply because what they had to say didn't fit with preconceived notions. The example I'm most familiar with is from this part of the world, as everyone 'knew' that stomach ulcers were caused by stress right up to the point that an Australian scientist proved that a bacteria caused it by infecting himself.

Another possible example is the controversy around the work of the anthropologist Derek Freeman, although it seems in that case that the controversy still isn't resolved and people still can't agree whether Freeman was right or Margaret Mead was right about adolescence in Samoa.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

orfeo, that was (in a round-about way) the point I was making. There is an inbuilt inertia to radical ideas in the peer-review system.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But, that inbuilt inertia is part of the strength of science. If it gets to the point that no new idea gets published science stops. But, at the other extreme if every new idea gets published without the constraint of community inertia then we all flit every which way and lose the foundations of the community built up over centuries. Of course, sometimes new ideas result in a radical shift in the community consensus ... in philosophy of science that's called a paradigm shift.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I think it can accurately be described as both a strength and a weakness of the system.

It is very difficult to get your paper published in a reputable science journal unless you are working in an established research institute. Which in some ways is totally understandable - it is very unlikely that someone is going to do cutting edge microbiology in a garage at home.

But then not all science is like this. It is not inconceivable that someone could find out something interesting/important in a garage that would be immediately rejected by all reputable editors. I can't speak to academic journals in other areas of study.

The system is based on a large degree of trust between peers. And this does work - because by its very nature, scientific study does usually build on the work of others, so we have new papers that constantly refine the idea of others. But that also means that a massive amount of effort is needed for the type of paradigm shift (on the most fundamental level at which the creationists are actually talking, we're basically meaning overturning 200 years of science in geology, never mind everything else). I think that is functionally impossible, even if it could be proven that the 200 years of science was wrong. It is actually easier to believe in the structures we have than attempt to rethink the whole science.

Of course, I don't actually think there is any need to rethink the whole science. But as a philosophical point, that level of paradigm shift is very difficult to conceive.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My first argument when addressing real life creationists is: "does God lie?" and pointing out that creating a world that appeared to every conceivable observation to be older than it is, would be a lie given solid form. I've rarely had a coherent response to that one, and it has the advantage of approaching the question from a theological point rather than purely scientific.

Or, as Karl has pointed out, the argument that God is a poor designer is an interesting one, easily demonstrated via the human body.

Rather naughtily, I sometimes recommend them to read 'Your Inner Fish' (Shubin), which shows how like fish humans are; this often elicits the argument from incredulity - we can't be like fish!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Of course, I don't actually think there is any need to rethink the whole science. But as a philosophical point, that level of paradigm shift is very difficult to conceive.

You mean, like the transition from classical physics to quantum physics, or classical astronomy to general relativity?

The fact is, we've already done it. Not painlessly - plenty of careers foundered - but it was still done.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I believe that the major paradigm shifts you describe above were made before the current system of peer reviewed journals. This is the point I am making.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, but the perception of who "wins" a debate is based more on perception than the validity of statement. So your bubble people may be swayed by other than real information.

Bingo. Presidential debates are a good point of reference. People form views on who won or lost based on how convincing they sounded, and don't shift from that view even if you prove that every single point they made was untrue. Occasionally, a few floating voters sway one way or the other, but essentially everyone carries the same voting intentions even if they think the other side won.

Debates might not be a total disaster for the purposes of education if both parties were principled and respectful, and if the audience were entirely objective and rational. I don't even think I match up to those standards. I guarantee that most of Ham's points could be refuted in 30 seconds with an internet connection, but if the YECs present haven't bothered to exploit this great information resource to date, why would they start now?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I believe that the major paradigm shifts you describe above were made before the current system of peer reviewed journals. This is the point I am making.

Einstein's paper on special relativity was published in Annalen der Physik, which is peer reviewed. I'm less certain about the publication history of basic quantum mechanical theories, but since they're of later vintage it seems likely that they also went through the peer review process.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
This is of course the basic problem with ID. [/QB]

Yes, it's 'unintelligent design' isn't it. After all who puts the sewer beside the amusement park, and then awards babies as the prize for being well amused.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
This is of course the basic problem with ID.
Yes, it's 'unintelligent design' isn't it. After all who puts the sewer beside the amusement park, and then awards babies as the prize for being well amused. [/QB]

Freud put it in Latin, presumably so as not to shock people: 'neurotics take exception to the fact that "inter urinas et faeces nascimur"', ie. we are born between piss and shit. Some people positively celebrate it, e.g. Mozart, 'Leck mich im Arsch, g'schwindi' - lick me in the arse, but quickly!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Freud put it in Latin, presumably so as not to shock people: 'neurotics take exception to the fact that "inter urinas et faeces nascimur"', ie. we are born between piss and shit. Some people positively celebrate it, e.g. Mozart, 'Leck mich im Arsch, g'schwindi' - lick me in the arse, but quickly!

Nicely done.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That's what Frau Mozart said.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Of course, I don't actually think there is any need to rethink the whole science. But as a philosophical point, that level of paradigm shift is very difficult to conceive.
You mean, like the transition from classical physics to quantum physics, or classical astronomy to general relativity?

The fact is, we've already done it. Not painlessly - plenty of careers foundered - but it was still done.

Also its physics that has worked like that. Biology has not historically involved those drastic shifts - lots of huge changes, (I could probably list about ten or a dozen) but mostly slow and overlapping rather than rapid and one after the other.

As for the question, I guess there are some arguments you get into for the sake of third parties and onlookers. There is probably no point in debating Christian YECcies in order to change their opinion but there might be in order to show others that not all Christians are YEC.

I suppose that if I ever found myself in a public debate with YECcies (something that seems pretty unlikely) I'd want to ignore or sidestep their pseudo-scientific soundbites (because they either really don't know what they are taking about,or else they are lying) and go straight for the theology. Start by talking about Jesus.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Start by talking about Jesus.

Fair enough. How? What are some starting points?
The best I've managed is that religion and science are answering different questions. It had never been very effective save to those who already see this way.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Start by talking about Jesus.
Fair enough. How? What are some starting points?
The best I've managed is that religion and science are answering different questions. It had never been very effective save to those who already see this way.

One of the main reasons that some Christians are Creationists is because they believe that since Jesus used the stories of Eden and Noah, then they must be historically true. And conversely, if you undermine the historicity of those events, you make the words of Jesus a lie.

By addressing the theology of storytelling (for example, are the parables also literally true?) you meet on common ground, as opposed to shouting at each other across a canyon.

Our purpose (well, my purpose - you may share it) isn't to undermine the Creationist's faith, but to put it on stronger foundations.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

By addressing the theology of storytelling (for example, are the parables also literally true?) you meet on common ground, as opposed to shouting at each other across a canyon.

I've tried this as well. This is tricky for some as to determining the dividing line between illustrative concept and real event.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Our purpose (well, my purpose - you may share it) isn't to undermine the Creationist's faith, but to put it on stronger foundations.

It is never my intent to undermine anyone's faith.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Our purpose (well, my purpose - you may share it) isn't to undermine the Creationist's faith, but to put it on stronger foundations.
It is never my intent to undermine anyone's faith.

Sorry - that was just a general comment, not directed at you in any way.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Or tectonic plates in geology.

I wouldn't put too much faith in the current peer-review process as the gold standard of the scientific method. It's undergoing a change, in part because the commercialization of the journals have made the journals less than impartial and thorough in negative reporting. It will probably change to open source as budgets continue to decline.

I enjoyed hearing Stephen Gould at a public lecture and he replied to a question about Intelligent Design. The evidence for evolution has been evaluated and this is no longer a scientific argument of any interest. However when evolution is challenged, it has to be defended, over and over and over again. Otherwise, those challenging it will claim the debate. Yes it does give credibility to join the debate, but the alternative is worse.

What makes this so tiresome is not that the YEC are bringing any new evidence but are driven by a belief in scriptural inerrancy which they have mostly learned to conceal. A great question to ask a YEC is what evidence would convince them of the truth of evolution.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Start by talking about Jesus.
Fair enough. How? What are some starting points?
The best I've managed is that religion and science are answering different questions. It had never been very effective save to those who already see this way.
One of the main reasons that some Christians are Creationists is because they believe that since Jesus used the stories of Eden and Noah, then they must be historically true. And conversely, if you undermine the historicity of those events, you make the words of Jesus a lie.

By addressing the theology of storytelling (for example, are the parables also literally true?) you meet on common ground, as opposed to shouting at each other across a canyon.

Our purpose (well, my purpose - you may share it) isn't to undermine the Creationist's faith, but to put it on stronger foundations.

The singer I mentioned based his arguments ultimately on the hypothesis that if Genesis falls, so do the words of Christ, and what could he then believe. For him personally, his relationship with Christ kept him, he said, from committing sins. I challenged him on this, as he gave me no indication of being a man tempted to serious malfeasance and holding himself back from it (and he wasn't one of those people whose testimony is that they were a worse sinner than anyone else, either). As far as I could make out, it wasn't the tiny sins are as bad as causing the deaths of millions argument either, but most probably that he had considered being unfaithful.
I couldn't see, if there were an experienced relationship with Christ, how that would be nullified by the person he knew having used as a narrative example something proved to be inaccurate, but that is what he believed. I had the impression that he had been taught to believe this, rather than trusting in his own experience.
I do not have a very high opinion of those who peddle these ideas and trap people in ignorance. I don't think I would be so open to any prompting not to pursue the issue further if I were to meet one.
BTW, the argument that their god is revealed to be a liar in placing the appearance of age in his universe is answered by claims that what appear to be proofs of age are due to our misunderstanding the evidences of rocks, stellar light, codes in the DNA and so forth because we have not yet looked at them properly, or have been misled by the deliberate lies of those setting out to destroy faith. If the people challenged have read that far in the Big Website of How to Defeat the Ignorant Scientists.

[ 09. January 2014, 22:51: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As for the question, I guess there are some arguments you get into for the sake of third parties and onlookers. There is probably no point in debating Christian YECcies in order to change their opinion but there might be in order to show others that not all Christians are YEC.

I suppose that if I ever found myself in a public debate with YECcies (something that seems pretty unlikely) I'd want to ignore or sidestep their pseudo-scientific soundbites (because they either really don't know what they are taking about,or else they are lying) and go straight for the theology. Start by talking about Jesus.

I can see sense in this from a Christian point of view, as an internal squabble over the true meaning of a shared religion (depending on the nature and composition of the audience), but as stated, if you'll forgive the phrasing, it seems to be more like a turf war and advertising. Is there any reason for a hypothetical atheist scientist to debate, or is the motivation entirely based on fighting over that shared identity?

Also, would you say that scientists shouldn't engage, because they're playing into YECs' hands by allowing them to play their own pseudoscience in a Gish Gallop of bollocks?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Start by talking about Jesus.
Fair enough. How? What are some starting points?
The best I've managed is that religion and science are answering different questions. It had never been very effective save to those who already see this way.

Well I guess you might go for the reality of the Incarnation. I mean "guess" I never really tried this because I have never been in the situation of having to debate such things on stage. The Incarnation is real, not some kind of stage-show or fake. God creates an objectively real world in which to be incarnate. "God so loved the world" and all that. Jesus really lived and really suffered and really died. This needs a real world to do it in, one that has internal consistency, one that is more than some sort of projection of the mind of God, one that is separate and distinct from God (that's one of the things we mean by the holiness of God) God does create such a world. Its the one we come from (we are made from the dust of the earth) and the one we live in, and the one Jesus was born as one of us in.

YEC implies that the world is a kind of fake, special-effects, a sort of virtual reality, some illusion got up to look like one thing when in fact it is another. That would not the kind of world that needs Jesus to be born and live and suffer and die to redeem it. It would not be the kind of world in which Jesus could come in the flesh, because there would be no real flesh to it at all. Its the kind of world imagined by some kinds of Hinduism or ancient Gnosticism, not the world described in the Bible. YEC makes God out to be a liar. It is blasphemous.

As the Apostle John wrote about the Gnostics of his day:

quote:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

As to the pseudoscientific Gishery, I'd be tempted to just tell the truth. Say quite clearly that the stuff they are quoting is lies, they are deceived, they need to hold to what is true, not what is false. The only way to debate a lie is to call it a lie.

They might claim that they have scientific evidence that the world looks young not old (which is more or less the only point at issue, all the rest is irrelevance) The honest response is to treat it with the contempt it deserves: "That's a lie. The person who wrote it wasn't telling the truth. Its made up. Either they were lying or they were deceived. If you say you believe it then either you are lying - in which case you need to repent and confess your sins to almighty God and trust in the saving power of Jesus for forgiveness - or else (as I sincerely hope) you simply don't understand it, in which case you need to go back to school. And a school that teaches real science, not made-up bollocks. Either way I can't help you."

Be straight and blunt and honest. Its the only way to deal with lies.

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

Also, would you say that scientists shouldn't engage, because they're playing into YECs' hands by allowing them to play their own pseudoscience in a Gish Gallop of bollocks?

I have met palaeontologists who have been ambushed by YECs. Tricked into stage-managed "debates" with packed audiences and fixed agendas in which they were not given a chance to say their piece, and where they were lied to and later lied about, deliberately misquoted to provide fake soundbites for the YEC media circus. They had no desire to ever get trapped like that again.

Also why should scientists (whether Christians or non-Christians) debate the science with them? Apart from perhaps some states in the USA where local education has been hijacked by right-wing anti-science campaigners posing as Christians, scientists have nothing to fear from YEC any more than they need worry about phlogiston or the Philosophers Stone. The arguments have been over for eighty years. (The most important one, about the age of the Earth, has been over for a hundred and eighty years). If a few people choose to believe some nonsense, what inconvenience is it to them?

I think YECcies don't realise how little of a threat they are to working biologists and palaeontologists. In most times and most places they aren't even on the radar. Their views are not being censored - they are aren't even being noticed. The scientists are no more likely to debate "Flood Geology" versus "Intelligent Design" over the lab bench or a pint in the pub than politicians are likely to discuss the contest between the Guelfs and the Ghibellines.

Christians (whether scientists or not) might want to argue with young-earthers because the immorality of the YEC bosses, and the absurdity of some of what they demand other Christians believe, are an insult to other Christians and to Jesus Christ himself. But that's not really a scientific debate. because there isn't a scientific debate to have. The world really does look old. Its a done deal. No-one seriously doubts it any more.

[ 10. January 2014, 16:16: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

I think YECcies don't realise how little of a threat they are to working biologists and palaeontologists.

Except, potentially, for funding.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@Quetz

quote:
Yes, it always reminds me of the old joke about wrestling with a pig - you end up covered in shit, and the pig loves it

And there's always the pigeon: Arguing with a creationist about evolution is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how well you play, the pigeon will knock the pieces over, shit all over the board and then strut about as if he's won a fabulous victory.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it's peer-reviewed material which really counts, and I know that some creationists have a kind of conspiracy theory here, that their work is not accepted in scientific journals. Well, yes, there are good reasons for that, namely that they don't follow standard scientific methods.

Yes, I think the basic obstacle is that creationists don't trust scientists.

Fundamentally, any attempt that anyone, however brilliant, makes to refute creationism is going to depend on what some scientists observed in the lab or in the field. If the creationists don't trust those scientists then you have no argument that will convince them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0