Is there nothing Creationist wont do?

[Bristow42]

I was on YouTube, having a debate in the comments with a Creationist. On a Ken Ham video. The last comment concerted me the most Quote"god created DNA, by design, intelligent design." I know it seems petty but my concerns are.

1. Is this a new tact to claim scientific research, by saying it is the work of God. To hijack someone science achievements and associate with Creationist doctrine.

2. Its not only the theory of evolution that is under attack but all sciences, that don't fit in with their doctrine.

3. How do you fight this, when evolution has been to court twice, once in1925 and recently. Yet legally statements which Ken Ham make should be taken to court to put his claims on trial.

[Bristow42]

The thread I am a sceptic", justifys my arguement, that it is a dirty little war, they are waging.

[AgeGap]

Like truther arguments you can win the battles but the war continues.
they will drag facts out of their behinds. You have to coherently state why this can not be so.
Have you won?
No!
They crap out another fact and it goes on.

Try to make your own oddbod theory and shoot it down. Then come up with the same theory from a different angle. You could go on forever.

And you thought that it was science that bent and doctrine that breaks.

[Dr Adequate]

How do you fight this, when evolution has been to court twice, once in1925 and recently. Yet legally statements which Ken Ham make should be taken to court to put his claims on trial. It's not a crime to be an idiot.

[Wowbagger]

3. How do you fight this, when evolution has been to court twice, once in1925 and recently. Yet legally statements which Ken Ham make should be taken to court to put his claims on trial. First of all, science isn't really judged through court cases. Evolution may have won all the recent rounds, but you can't count on that happening all the time. The minute some crazy judge allows I.D. to win something, you are going to get all the Creationists tossing "See?! We can win court cases, too!!", right back at you.
I doubt that is likely to happen, but you never know. Therefore, you should stick to the science.

Remind creationists that:
* Science builds empirically testable, reliably repeatable models of the Universe. It is NOT the search for ultimate truth. So, unless they have empirically testable, reliably repeatable evidence for the nature and mechanisms of The Designer, they are not really participating in science, but rather indulging in philosophy.

* There is NOTHING wrong with philosophy! If they want to believe in God, that's fine. That helps them construct a consistent worldview, in their brain, and provides a wellspring of hope into their actions, and something they should keep and cherish. As long as:
-They are not hurting anyone, nor advocating hurting anyone.
-They don't try to mix their views with real science.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

* Evolution, as a model, has been a pretty powerful one, in helping us enhance all sorts of other fields: medical research, agriculture, species conservation, etc. Use some examples from here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

Ask them: What powerful alternatives does ID/Creationism offer?

* What most Creationists know about Evolution is probably wrong, if they acquired it from religious leaders, and not the actual scientists. You can't fight an idea, if your idea of that idea is just a strawman. If they really want to destroy Evolution, they should make the effort to "know thy enemy". They can begin their journey, here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

* Most creationists also don't know very much about scientific principals, and the scientific method, at all. I started writing a draft to summarize this topic, specifically aimed at them. But, it is not available, yet. Here are a couple of resources you can peruse or link to, in the meantime:
- Scientific Method on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- Properties of a Good Scientific Theory: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60040
- Fallacies to Avoid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
And, you can Google for more.

The scientific method is a discipline for acquiring new knowledge. Scientists will try to comply with as many "good properties" as much as possible, while avoiding fallacy as much as possible.

Changing the mind of a Creationist is a slow process. You can't destroy a person's world view, without them recognizing a better alternative. But, be diplomatic, patient, and non-insulting. Respect whatever intelligence they have, (even if it seems to be very little). And, you will increase your chances of success.

It helps to read a couple of books on psychology, cult member deprogramming, and more specifically: cognitive dissonance. If you are going to make Creationist debating a hobby, you should put in the effort to understand your "enemy", as well.

One book I would recommend you start with is: Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

See... THIS is why Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in a science class.

IT'S NOT SCIENCE!

You can't design a test to falsify an ID claim because it all comes back to a single unassailable fact.

Science isn't about explaining the situation, it's about actively finding the truth! Part of that active finding is assailing every fact, validating and falsifying each one with experiment, observation, and research to discover newer and deeper facts.

I kind of like the juxtaposition of ID and CT. They're both about the same thing, scientifically speaking. Both feel that a parallel explanation which explains all the same stuff and raises questions that the scientific rigor can't answer means that they WIN.

Real scientists know that they never, "win." They just keep getting closer and closer to the goal.

[LarianLeQuella]

Hi

See... THIS is why Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in a science class.

IT'S NOT SCIENCE!



Try telling that to an I.D.iot... Get them to explain wha the word theory means too while you're at it. Then sit back and weep at their ignorance.

[Bristow42]

Thank you for your replies so far. Must mention, that Evangelical churches have moved into mainstream private schools systems and also have Universities that dumb down evolution in their schools. Were you have a generation of semi educated, graduates, with dodge PhD in Biology. Then move on to other government institutions, government advisory boards, and so on. How do you in the future debate your evolutionary ideas, and receive the funding, you need when you are dictated by the methods you are allowed to use. Case in point embryo and stem research.

[LarianLeQuella]

Bristow42, over at the Bad Astronomy blog, there was some great posts that you could use.

One I found particuarly appropriate:

One problem I always have with this arguement is that the pro-ID / creationists seem to be, with respect, using the word “religion” deceptively.

By “religion” they mean “Evangelical/Baptist USA-style protestant Christianity”. They most definitely do not mean “religion”. They would be utterly horrified if the “wrong” religion was chosen. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me to demand that “religion” be taught in schools when what you mean is “MY religion”.

Honestly, those above who are arguing against the teaching of the current best theory for the diversity of life in Biology classes and think that “religious” creation theory should be included, do you really mean that? Honestly, when your child comes home from shool talking about how Allah created the world, or how Zeus ripped the testicles from Chronus, or about the Norse World Tree, or how Xenu dumped aliens into volcanoes then atomic bombed them, or, for that matter, the Hindu, Bhuddist, Native American or Sikh creation stories, will you nod wisely and say “yes, I am glad you are being taught the alternatives to Evolutionary Theory” or will you say “how dare they teach my kids something other than what my pastor says!”?

In addition, I think you want to think carefully about whether or not you really want what you’re asking for… OK, teach religion in science class. Please. Using proper scientific methodology. Allow science teachers to point out errors in consistency and logic in religious texts. Allow experiments to be done to attempt to prove the power of prayer [”this half of the class prays for the coin to come up heads….” for a thousand flips]. Let science teachers critically analyse and disect evidence for biblical claims, such as resurrection. Allow them to point out other “theories” such as comas, fakery and so on and lead the class in an analysis of what is the most likely apparent reason.

You might not get the converts you’re looking for - more likely, kids would go home and get into trouble with their parents when they get home and tell them they’ve discovered in school today, in their legally-permitted “The science of religion” classes, that there is no actual direct evidence for the existance of a god.



http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/22/texas-teetering-on-the-edge-of-doom/#comment-151306 Read the posts, while there are IDiots there, there are some great posts as well.

[Dr Adequate]

Thank you for your replies so far. Must mention, that Evangelical churches have moved into mainstream private schools systems and also have Universities that dumb down evolution in their schools. The universities tend to be OK. To quote creationist Jonathan Sarfatti of Answers in Genesis:

It is mystifying that many conservative Christian Bible colleges and seminaries also seem to loathe creationists.

And the Institute for Creation Research laments:

It is a tragic fact that all secular colleges and most religious colleges in America have become permeated with evolutionism in all their curricula.

Aw ... doesn't your heart just bleed for them?

[Subduction Zone]

I know in the U.S. it is mostly evangelicals who are pushing this IDiosity. My question is what is going on in Muslim countries. From what little I have heard their clerics are even more adamant about the idea of Adam and Eve (or whoever they would be in Arabic) and the idea of a young Earth. There is even a slightly infamous Youtube video of an Iranian arguing, seriously, for a flat Earth, since it is alluded to in the Koran.

[Subduction Zone]

It a little bit but here is the Youtube video I was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wppjYDj9JUc

[sphenisc]

Like truther arguments you can win the battles but the war continues.
they will drag facts out of their behinds. You have to coherently state why this can not be so.
Have you won?
No!
They crap out another fact and it goes on.


Hi

You can't design a test to falsify an ID claim because it all comes back to a single unassailable fact.


So which is it? A series of individually assailable facts or a single unassailable one?

I might find your arguments against ID more convincing if you could agree on what it means.

[Dr Adequate]

So which is it? A series of individually assailable facts or a single unassailable one?

I might find your arguments against ID more convincing if you could agree on what it means. The "facts" that they make up are to discredit evolution. When it comes to producing anything like positive evidence for ID, they can always hedge it about with so many qualifications as to render it meaningless and unfalsifiable.

See the difference?

For example, I was recently talking to a creationist who claimed that "if evolution was true" we'd have infra-red vision, 'cos it would be so useful (yeah, to endotherms?) When I asked him why, in that case, a perfect and omnipotent Creator had so far blundered as to not give us this feature, he was all: "Who are we mere mortals to judge the ways of God, obviously he had a good reason."

He went on to claim that "if evolution was true", we'd have evolved so that activity had no metabolic cost ...

[sphenisc]

The "facts" that they make up are to discredit evolution. When it comes to producing anything like positive evidence for ID, they can always hedge it about with so many qualifications as to render it meaningless and unfalsifiable.

See the difference?



Certainly, and that it implies that some ID claims are falsifiable, and some aren't. Making both AgeGap's and Gagglegnash's descriptions - less than complete.

[Dr Adequate]

Certainly, and that it implies that some ID claims are falsifiable, and some aren't. Claims of ID tend to be unfalsifiable. Whereas their whining about evolution is false.

[Slimething]

Please avert your eyes while I wax cynical. For most purveyors of unbased fairy tales such as Ken Ham, running up evolution, abortion, non-heterosexuality, etc. does nothing more than keep the money flowing in. If you can convince someone that they need to believe as you do and that anyone who doesn't is dangerous, you've tapped a gold mine that won't quit until they do. Find two, three or more and you're set for life.

These people hopefully will never win. Our problem is that they will never quit trying to impose their ideology on us and others. They won't succeed when it comes to us but others? That's why we should never quit either.

[Bristow42]

Well said, fight the unwinnable, to preserve the truth. For everyone that falls, someone will take their place. But how to stop them, words are not enough. Unless people are prepared to demonstrate, get media coverage, fight these mongrels on their own terms, lobby their politicians. They will get people excepting their ideas and evolution is on the back foot again. Look how Scientology got approval to be recognized as a church. Evolution must not get a equal footing with Creation, ID and any other peanut butter idea they come up with. The percentage of people must be convinced of its worth. Their most powerful weapon is competency on our part. If we have a win pump it for all its worth. It is hearts and minds we seek. Because our future depends on it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

1. Is this a new tact to claim scientific research, by saying it is the work of God. To hijack someone science achievements and associate with Creationist doctrine.

It's a rather refreshingly bald faced admission of the must fundamental tenet of ID - that it's Creationism and God of the Gaps wearing a new suit. How much science do you think the C/ID respondants know? It's all well and good for them to believe that God made DNA, but for it to be science they need to offer an observation which can falsify that hypothesis.

2. Its not only the theory of evolution that is under attack but all sciences, that don't fit in with their doctrine.

One of the most pathologica things about C/ID knuckleheads is in one breath they can tell you their beliefs have never changed (they actually have over the years) while science changes every minute (hyperbole) and in the next they will tell you they "interpret" mountains to be 4000 years old while science "interprets" them to be millions.

3. How do you fight this, when evolution has been to court twice, once in1925 and recently. Yet legally statements which Ken Ham make should be taken to court to put his claims on trial.

You fight with facts. Thankfully we have them on our side.

As far as the court cases go, Scopes was about the teaching of evolution in violation of the Butler Act. It was a local dog and pony show with very little effect on jurisprudence. The main cases are Epperson v. Arkansas which struck down anti-evolution educational legislation, McLean v. Arkansas which struck down "balanced treatment", Edwards v. Aguillard which declared Creationism unconstitutional in public schools and Kitzmiller v. Dover, a district court decision that said the same for ID.

All of the main cases were argued with the Establishment clause, though some good science, unlike the Scopes trial, did make it into the court room.