My coworker is a YEC--what do I do?

[CplFerro]

He holds to the Great Flood, Young Earth, and Special Creation. He claims dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in the same fossil, that mind cannot come from matter, that matter cannot be eternal "according to the First Law of Thermodynamics" and other things. He's well-spoken, better at rhetoric than I am, and about forty years older. I would recommend to him some videos by AronRa on YouTube, but he doesn't own a computer, preferring to spend his time reading and praying.

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

[theprestige]

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?
I find that what works best for me is to leave all discussions of politics, sex, and religion out of the workplace.

Unless his YEC beliefs are impairing his performance, what's the point? Are you hoping to become better friends by debating his beliefs with him? Is it going to give you better marks on your next performance review? Will it get you a pay increase or an extra day without a workplace accident?

And what's good for the goose is good for the gander: If he's annoying you with his religious babble, you can simply ask him to leave it at home (like you do), and get on with your life.

[Ocelot]

He holds to the Great Flood, Young Earth, and Special Creation. He claims dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in the same fossil, that mind cannot come from matter, that matter cannot be eternal "according to the First Law of Thermodynamics" and other things. He's well-spoken, better at rhetoric than I am, and about forty years older. I would recommend to him some videos by AronRa on YouTube, but he doesn't own a computer, preferring to spend his time reading and praying.

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

I take it you've read talk origins index of creationist claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

What I'd do is offer to be convinced. Don't accept the Gish gallop just offer to research on thing at a time. Bring in printouts of what you find if he hasn't got internet. Cross them off one by one.

[Mashuna]

Whenever he starts to talk about these things, just start laughing uncontrollably. If he stops, encourage him to tell you another one, as you always love his hilarious stories.

[jay.tarnoff]

I find that what works best for me is to leave all discussions of politics, sex, and religion out of the workplace.

Unless his YEC beliefs are impairing his performance, what's the point? Are you hoping to become better friends by debating his beliefs with him? Is it going to give you better marks on your next performance review? Will it get you a pay increase or an extra day without a workplace accident?

And what's good for the goose is good for the gander: If he's annoying you with his religious babble, you can simply ask him to leave it at home (like you do), and get on with your life.

I agree with theprestige. He is free to believe what he wants; just ask him politely not to try to indoctrinate you into his beliefs, if this is what he is doing.

If he is open to hearing your point of view and you are his points of view, there is always the "planting the seed" method. Most likely, you aren't going to win him over with some grand argument of why he is wrong and you are right. Instead, get him to doubt some very little, what you may see as insignificant belief of his. Sometimes a little doubt can turn into a big doubt.

[theprestige]

Whenever he starts to talk about these things, just start laughing uncontrollably. If he stops, encourage him to tell you another one, as you always love his hilarious stories.
... And this strategy demonstrates the validity of evolution how, exactly?

Also, I'd be interested to know how it would contribute to an atmosphere of mutual respect and cheerful cooperation in the workplace.

[Xulld]

I find that what works best for me is to leave all discussions of politics, sex, and religion out of the workplace.

Unless his YEC beliefs are impairing his performance, what's the point? Are you hoping to become better friends by debating his beliefs with him? Is it going to give you better marks on your next performance review? Will it get you a pay increase or an extra day without a workplace accident?

And what's good for the goose is good for the gander: If he's annoying you with his religious babble, you can simply ask him to leave it at home (like you do), and get on with your life.

I couldn't agree more. I will go to the mat about ideas outside of work, but at work my goal is to stay productive and employed. The only way to achieve that is to keep civil with all of your coworkers.

This conversation has a tendency to get people riled up. Especially believers.

If you do not care about your job, then there is a lot of information out there about ALL of the claims made by YEC.

You can take two tacts.

1) try to educate this man (usually fails due to head in sand and selective listing)
2) debunk the evidence he uses to support his conclusions. (this is easy but can be exhaustive if you have not spent a lot of time being yourself educated in topics as wide ranging as geology, evolution, abiogenesis, particle physics, thermodynamics, organic chemistry.


I would ignore him if you care about your job, if you do not, then send me a PM (or post here and maybe I will remember to respond, if not I am sure someone else will) with some of his claims and I am happy to dig up rebuttals with citations to anything a YEC could possibly throw at you.

[Mashuna]

... And this strategy demonstrates the validity of evolution how, exactly?

Oh, it doesn't demonstrate the validity of evolution at all. But if there's someone at work, presumably in their sixties (I don't know how old CplFerro is) who talks about young earth creationism and spends his spare time praying, I'd be astounded if you could get him to change his views in the slightest.


Also, I'd be interested to know how it would contribute to an atmosphere of mutual respect and cheerful cooperation in the workplace.

With any luck, by stopping him talking about the subject.

[MattusMaximus]

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

Tell him to avoid all modern antibiotics & vaccines, since that medical technology is based upon our understanding of evolution. Otherwise, he's a hypocrite.

[Xulld]

I take it you've read talk origins index of creationist claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

What I'd do is offer to be convinced. Don't accept the Gish gallop just offer to research on thing at a time. Bring in printouts of what you find if he hasn't got internet. Cross them off one by one.

MY favorite method, and the one that seems to produce the least amount of disrespect.

[BenBurch]

Yes. Not in the workplace. It can create problems you do not want.

If HE is forcing his religion on you in the workplace, a discussion with HR would be in order as this can be seen as creating a hostile workplace environment.

[joobz]

What do you do for a living, and how did the conversation come up in the first place?

[joobz]

Yes. Not in the workplace. It can create problems you do not want.

If HE is forcing his religion on you in the workplace, a discussion with HR would be in order as this can be seen as creating a hostile workplace environment.
That's entirely the point I was getting at with my questions.

By comparison, if you are the one who makes an issue of it, it could become YOU who is creating the hostile environment.

[stijndeloose]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Man, man, man! GREAT LINK!

[Third Eye Open]

My coworker is a YEC--what do I do?

Nothing! Do not risk your job over this! Since these are religious beliefs, saying anything negative about them in a work environment could be very dangerous!

[ponderingturtle]

In addition to those who say to leave discussion of religion out of the work place, I wonder what your relative posistions are. He is clearly much older than you, is he your boss or a supervisor with the company?

If done in a friendly manner I see no problem with the addressing one point of his at a time, so that you never had a long argument that could get emotional. It also lets both of you show that you want the debate, if you answered his last claim do not pester him for another. If he pesters you after he makes a claim before you answer it, consider letting him know what you feel about this.

Of course I had a guy who worked next to me who would talk endlessly everyday about what O'Reily said the night before. I was not terribly upset when he got laid off because of the ecconomy.

[Cainkane1]

He holds to the Great Flood, Young Earth, and Special Creation. He claims dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in the same fossil, that mind cannot come from matter, that matter cannot be eternal "according to the First Law of Thermodynamics" and other things. He's well-spoken, better at rhetoric than I am, and about forty years older. I would recommend to him some videos by AronRa on YouTube, but he doesn't own a computer, preferring to spend his time reading and praying.

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?
He's hopeless. Leave him alone in his error.

[theprestige]

Oh, it doesn't demonstrate the validity of evolution at all. But if there's someone at work, presumably in their sixties (I don't know how old CplFerro is) who talks about young earth creationism and spends his spare time praying, I'd be astounded if you could get him to change his views in the slightest.



With any luck, by stopping him talking about the subject.
I'm still confused: How does "you can't change his mind, so just ridicule his beliefs instead", promote respect and cooperation among co-workers?

[Morrigan]

... And this strategy demonstrates the validity of evolution how, exactly?
He wasn't saying it demonstrated the validity of evolution. Where'd you get that?

I'm still confused: How does "you can't change his mind, so just ridicule his beliefs instead", promote respect and cooperation among co-workers?

Respecting co-workers is overrated, especially when so many of them are mind-boggingly stupid and/or incompetent.

[mhaze]

....Respecting co-workers is overrated, especially when so many of them are mind-boggingly stupid and/or incompetent.But stupid and incomp have to be evaluated in the workplace with respect to the workplace.

There are ways to get along with a diverse group.

[theprestige]

He wasn't saying it demonstrated the validity of evolution. Where'd you get that?
From the OP:

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?


Meanwhile...
Respecting co-workers is overrated, especially when so many of them are mind-boggingly stupid and/or incompetent.
I... guess you're right? I'll have to reconsider my longstanding policy of "not disrespecting co-workers", and see if that improves my chances for career advancement.

Incidentally, while I know anecdotes aren't really considered strong evidence, do you have any experience with advancing your career by openly ridiculing your co-worker's beliefs? If so, would you be willing to share that with us? Before I risk my job with your unorthodox approach, I'd just like to make sure that this isn't some horrible misunderstanding, or that you're not improperly generalizing from a special case, or anything silly like that.

[CurtC]

What I'd do is offer to be convinced.

Excellent advice. Either do this, or avoid the subject completely. Take one point at a time, starting with what he thinks is the most convincing. Don't move on until you've fully addressed that one point.


Nothing! Do not risk your job over this! Since these are religious beliefs, saying anything negative about them in a work environment could be very dangerous!
If his co-worker is asserting that the Earth is 10,000 years old, challenging that is not saying something negative about religion. If there is a conflict here, it's the co-worker who's in the wrong. CplFerro is going to conduct himself properly in the discussion.

[Perpetual Student]

It's hopeless. FORGETABOUTIT!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's difficult to demonstrate the validity of the evolution of life on Earth as we know it, but it's easy to demonstrate the validity of the process of evolution in general:


The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

So know you're down to discussing practical details like whether there has been enough time for life to evolve to its present state on Earth. Since he is a YEC, you can simply agree with him that if he is correct, then there hasn't been enough time.

Hope this helps.

~~ Paul

[godless dave]

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

Give up.

[Robster, FCD]

I'd leave him alone unless both of you enjoy the discussion. If so, read up on it. If not, read up on it anyway.

[volatile]

Buy him some books? Dawkins' 'Climbing Mount Improbable' and Simon Singh's bookon the Big Bang might be good starters...

[Hindmost]

He holds to the Great Flood, Young Earth, and Special Creation. He claims dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in the same fossil, that mind cannot come from matter, that matter cannot be eternal "according to the First Law of Thermodynamics" and other things. He's well-spoken, better at rhetoric than I am, and about forty years older. I would recommend to him some videos by AronRa on YouTube, but he doesn't own a computer, preferring to spend his time reading and praying.

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

Some battles are not worth fighting. I would just avoid the issue unless he truly seeks advice--and I would tread lightly.

But stupid and incomp have to be evaluated in the workplace with respect to the workplace.

There are ways to get along with a diverse group.

OMG...not if they are warmers.

glenn

[temporalillusion]

Most YECers don't become so because they've been convinced of the evidence for YEC.. so it's unreasonable to expect them to change their minds based on evidence.

Most YECers begin with Biblical inerrancy or their religious position and work from there, and may construe any attack on their YEC beliefs as an attack on their religion.

If he asks questions respectfully answer them, but I agree that in the workplace something like that could rapidly get people in trouble (depending on the workplace).

Just buy him Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller and tell him it's a book about evolution by a believer.

[vIQleS]

I was converted from being a YEC by this online forum I found... JMEF, or JZEF or something...

Of course I went there because I was interested in skepticism, so that might be a first step. Talk about homoeopathy, psychics etc, find a common ground that you both agree on, then get him to join the JKEF. once he's in, get him to join the discussions on YEC in the religion / science threads...

Then have him do his own research - talkorigins is good... I found youtube particularly useful for learning what I had been misinformed about re evilution...

[Subduction Zone]

I have one brother who is literally a rocket scientist for NASA and another who is a creationist. My creationist brother is far from stupid. He is very bright with this one exception. His wife is from Costa Rica and his Spanish is impeccable, in fact he has corrected her Spanish, and to make make it worse he was right. He is not quite a YEC, but if the Bible says something it must be so. I can get along fine with him as long as we don't bring up evolution. As to the OP's problem with convincing his coworker, it ain't gonna happen. Also since he is much older he may be more ensconced and valuable to the company. Before starting any trouble remember who is more likely to get fired. Seriously you cannot argue logically with Creationists, they would not be Creationists if you could argue with them.

[Harpyja]

Once again - why is this your problem?

[schplurg]

I agree with theprestige. He is free to believe what he wants; just ask him politely not to try to indoctrinate you into his beliefs, if this is what he is doing.

If he is open to hearing your point of view and you are his points of view, there is always the "planting the seed" method. Most likely, you aren't going to win him over with some grand argument of why he is wrong and you are right. Instead, get him to doubt some very little, what you may see as insignificant belief of his. Sometimes a little doubt can turn into a big doubt.

I agree with your first paragraph and disagree with the second :)

[fishbob]

He holds to the Great Flood, Young Earth, and Special Creation. He claims dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in the same fossil, that mind cannot come from matter, that matter cannot be eternal "according to the First Law of Thermodynamics" and other things. He's well-spoken, better at rhetoric than I am, and about forty years older. I would recommend to him some videos by AronRa on YouTube, but he doesn't own a computer, preferring to spend his time reading and praying.

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

For him, it is too late. For you, I recommend earphones and loud music.

[Ocelot]

Nothing! Do not risk your job over this! Since these are religious beliefs, saying anything negative about them in a work environment could be very dangerous!

NO they are scientific beliefs. Steer clear of the Bible and the existence of God you should be fine.

No one has a shrine to Carl Baugh and his unscientifc Man Track claims. If Answers in Genesis (one set of rabid creationists) can maintain their faith in a created universe whist skewering embarrassing Man Track nonsense then so can the non-religious.

[politas]

Whenever he starts to talk about these things, just start laughing uncontrollably. If he stops, encourage him to tell you another one, as you always love his hilarious stories.I agree. Mock him. Mock him with great mocking.

[rjh01]

I agree. Mock him. Mock him with great mocking.

With luck that will get him to question his own beliefs. If it does not then he has a closed mind and nothing will change it.

[BenBurch]

But stupid and incomp have to be evaluated in the workplace with respect to the workplace.

There are ways to get along with a diverse group.

Totally agree. You are there to get the JOB done.

[Wowbagger]

I always like to sock 'em with the practical stuff.

Show him how the science of Evolution has impacted all of our lives:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

It is kinda difficult to argue that something is "bad science", when it already has such a rich history of helping us resolve real problems.

He doesn't have to give up his faith, either. He can remain true to God, while acknowledging the progress and importance of scientific models. And, he can even remain a good, moral person while doing so.

[ben m]

Some battles are not worth fighting. I would just avoid the issue unless he truly seeks advice--and I would tread lightly.

I'd advise:

1) If this guy is pushing his beliefs on you and others, ask him politely to stop. "I recognize that these beliefs are important to you, but I'm not comfortable hearing about them in the workplace."

2) Offer that you're willing to discuss it with him or not. "Y'know, I think you know I disagree with you, but let's leave it at that. If you are interested ask me after work some time and I can explain why I disagree." If he doesn't initiate the conversation (after work) then don't push anything at him.

[thaiboxerken]

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

You can't. A moron like this has already looked at the evidence and dismissed it in favor of his magical beliefs. The best thing to do is to ridicule the beliefs until he's embarrassed to have them.

[Raze]

He holds to the Great Flood, Young Earth, and Special Creation. He claims dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in the same fossil, that mind cannot come from matter, that matter cannot be eternal "according to the First Law of Thermodynamics" and other things. He's well-spoken, better at rhetoric than I am, and about forty years older. I would recommend to him some videos by AronRa on YouTube, but he doesn't own a computer, preferring to spend his time reading and praying.

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

I would advise you to simply not talk about it.


But, if you want to abandon all wisdom, ask him why God designed the world with bacteria. Why would God make it so that in order to survive, microorganisms must live inside our bodies, squirming inside all disgustingly. And ask about the fact that some microorganisms kills us. And also ask him why we keep needing to create new vaccines against infectious microorganisms.



And this:




Just buy him Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller and tell him it's a book about evolution by a believer.

Totally agree.

[CurtC]

But, if you want to abandon all wisdom, ask him why God designed the world with bacteria.I disagree. The claim that he wants to discuss is that of a young Earth. He should avoid discussing God and discuss the evidence for an old Earth. If you keep God out of the discussion, you're not treading on sensitive ground.

[thaiboxerken]

God designed the world perfectly. It was man's sin that created the evil bacteria and germs. That's the answer you'll get.

[I'll_buy_that]

...ask him why God designed the world with bacteria...

You can't ask questions like this of a believer. They can always counter with god is testing us, or god just sets things in motion, or some other excuse.

People who question religion will always start with 'why does god allow bad people, or disease, or ...' it's an easy question to answer for a believer.

I agree that, if you want to keep your job, you should keep talk of religion and sexual orientation out of the office. You never know who you will offend, then you will be blamed for creating a hostile environment and can be terminated.

[Morrigan]

From the OP:
So? It seemed obvious from the context that Mashuna wasn't answering the direct question to the OP, but offering his general opinion on what should be done.


I... guess you're right? I'll have to reconsider my longstanding policy of "not disrespecting co-workers", and see if that improves my chances for career advancement.

Incidentally, while I know anecdotes aren't really considered strong evidence, do you have any experience with advancing your career by openly ridiculing your co-worker's beliefs? If so, would you be willing to share that with us? Before I risk my job with your unorthodox approach, I'd just like to make sure that this isn't some horrible misunderstanding, or that you're not improperly generalizing from a special case, or anything silly like that.

Who said I openly ridiculed my co-workers's beliefs? I'm actually pretty good at being diplomatic and friendly at work. But, I've also never encountered a YEC (being in Canada I'm pretty sure it won't happen anytime soon, thankfully). I hate going to work and don't really care about career advancement, so if I encountered an obnoxious YEC co-worker, especially one who wasn't my boss or superior, I'd probably not be able to resist laughing at him. If he's offended, who cares? Maybe he'll complain to my superiors if he's really a giant wuss in addition to being an idiot, and at the very worst I'll get gently reprimanded. I can't say that would bother me in the least. It would bother me more to suffer the idiot silently, really.

Of course, your mileage may vary, and if career "advancement" is so important to you than I guess you ought to be extra careful at anything you do that might be held against you in this regard.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If this doesn't make him gag up his lunch, nothing will:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/7/7723/67027

Use that as a litmus test. If he ignores it, he's hopeless.

~~ Paul

[Raze]

You can't ask questions like this of a believer. They can always counter with god is testing us, or god just sets things in motion, or some other excuse.

Well, that question is really what pulled me away from creationism.

People who question religion will always start with 'why does god allow bad people, or disease, or ...' it's an easy question to answer for a believer.

I agree that, if you want to keep your job, you should keep talk of religion and sexual orientation out of the office. You never know who you will offend, then you will be blamed for creating a hostile environment and can be terminated.

I have to say you're pretty much right.




God designed the world perfectly. It was man's sin that created the evil bacteria and germs. That's the answer you'll get.

But what about the GOOD bacteria? Why bacteria at all?

[Perpetual Student]

But what about the GOOD bacteria? Why bacteria at all?

Bad bacteria were created because of original sin. Good bacteria were created to help God's favorite teams win big games. :crazy:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Whenever he starts to talk about these things, just start laughing uncontrollably. If he stops, encourage him to tell you another one, as you always love his hilarious stories.
Respecting co-workers is overrated, especially when so many of them are mind-boggingly stupid and/or incompetent.
I agree. Mock him. Mock him with great mocking.

Nice. You guys must be delightful to work with.

Who said I openly ridiculed my co-workers's beliefs? I'm actually pretty good at being diplomatic and friendly at work. But, I've also never encountered a YEC (being in Canada I'm pretty sure it won't happen anytime soon, thankfully). I hate going to work and don't really care about career advancement, so if I encountered an obnoxious YEC co-worker, especially one who wasn't my boss or superior, I'd probably not be able to resist laughing at him. If he's offended, who cares? Maybe he'll complain to my superiors if he's really a giant wuss in addition to being an idiot, and at the very worst I'll get gently reprimanded. I can't say that would bother me in the least. It would bother me more to suffer the idiot silently, really.

Ahhh, Gen Y.

Well, that question is really what pulled me away from creationism.

Really, because it's a pretty crappy argument against YEC.

But what about the GOOD bacteria? Why bacteria at all?

Unless you want to live in a world full of tree and animal bodies stacked miles deep, we need bacteria. And don't forget gut flora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora).

[Raze]

Really, because it's a pretty crappy argument against YEC.

It is similar to the one Darwin used about parasites.



Unless you want to live in a world full of tree and animal bodies stacked miles deep, we need bacteria. And don't forget gut flora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora).

But WHY? Why would a supposedly ALL POWERFUL GOD design creatures that for most of human history would NEVER be seen? And further still, why would this ALL POWERFUL God make our survival dependent upon them? Was this ALL POWERFUL God FORCED into this move? No, because he is all powerful. So why? What logical reason?

[UnrepentantSinner]

It is similar to the one Darwin used about parasites.

I must have missed where Darwin argued against Young Earth[i] Creationism by discussing parasites. Could you quote the relevant text?

But let me clarify. How are bacteria an argument against [i]Young Earth Creationism? I find the geological and astronomical arguments to be the most convincing.

But WHY? Why would a supposedly ALL POWERFUL GOD design creatures that for most of human history would NEVER be seen? And further still, why would this ALL POWERFUL God make our survival dependent upon them? Was this ALL POWERFUL God FORCED into this move? No, because he is all powerful. So why? What logical reason?

:confused: What are you, like 15 or something? I only ask so I know what I'm dealing with here.

[Raze]

I must have missed where Darwin argued against Young Earth[i] Creationism by discussing parasites. Could you quote the relevant text?

ETA-

It was not specifically about YEC, but YEC was included in the criticism.

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars. "


But let me clarify. How are bacteria an argument against [i]Young Earth Creationism? I find the geological and astronomical arguments to be the most convincing.



:confused: What are you, like 15 or something? I only ask so I know what I'm dealing with here.

Uh... the point is that asking the question about why God, who is all powerful, would be forced to design a universe with bacteria in it, or why he chose something so clearly UNNECESSARY for an ALL POWERFUL BEING began the long road of questioning. How is this hard to follow?

Now, the important thing that you seem to be missing is that Young Earth Creationists are NOT convinced by what scientists tell them about physical evidence. They believe that the scientists are lying, or mistaken. That is why the first step is to question the logic behind their own beliefs first. Understand yet?

Oh, and ad hominem only makes you look foolish.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Uh... the point is that asking the question about why God, who is all powerful, would be forced to design a universe with bacteria in it...

Again, which has what to do with Young Earth Creationism?

And where'd you get the silly idea that an all powerful deity would be force to design a planet with bacteria? Wouldn't a simpler answer be that said deity designed the bacteria to do something useful, much like rainclouds, photons, fruit producing plants, etc. etc.?

...or why he chose something so clearly UNNECESSARY for an ALL POWERFUL BEING began the long road of questioning.

How did you come to decide that bacteria was unnecessary and how did you gain insight into God's mind as to what was necessary and what wasn't?

How is this hard to follow?

Because it's not very logical and sounds a lot like the same crappy arguments Creationists make about evolution.

Oh, and ad hominem only makes one look foolish.

And not answering a question makes one look evasive.

[Raze]

Again, which has what to do with Young Earth Creationism?

And where'd you get the silly idea that an all powerful deity would be force to design a planet with bacteria? Wouldn't a simpler answer be that said deity designed the bacteria to do something useful, much like rainclouds, photons, fruit producing plants, etc. etc.?

In the YEC mind, the world has been put here largely for the enjoyment of human beings. Thus, the use of an invisible microorganism as a "necessary" part to life seems unnecessary. Whereas rainclouds and pretty fruit provide aesthetic appeal for Adam and Eve.



How did you come to decide that bacteria was unnecessary and how did you gain insight into God's mind as to what was necessary and what wasn't?

NOTHING is "necessary" for an all powerful being. That is the point. So, then you have to wonder why a God would create something that had no obvious value.

Because again, NOTHING is necessary. The assumption in the YEC mind is that God is purposeful and has a detailed plan. So why something so superfluous? God, being all powerful, could have easily designed a universe without bacteria that works exactly as the one we live in from the normal human perspective. Yet he chose to put them in, even though for the vast majority of history human beings were oblivious to them.


Because it's not very logical and sounds a lot like the same crappy arguments Creationists make about evolution.

It is quite logical. It's as logical as asking why god designed parasites. Or why he designed a world that, when gravity can be ignored, is Lorentz invariant instead of Galilean invariant.

Why? Why have a world that is Lorentz invariant instead of Galilean invariant when the two are only distinguished in the case of velocities approaching the speed of light?

That is the spirit of the question.


It's as if God put in little "Easter Eggs" for his own amusement. Which is contrary to the typical YEC understanding of God.


And not answering a question makes one look evasive.

Why should I extrapolate on something that is self evident?

[Morrigan]

Nice. You guys must be delightful to work with.

No co-worker has ever had any problem with me whatsoever.

(It won't stop me from finding many of them staggeringly incompetent, but if they don't know I think that, it can't bother them. ;))


Ahhh, Gen Y.

What is that supposed to mean?

[UnrepentantSinner]

In the YEC mind, the world has been put here largely for the enjoyment of human beings.

Not so much. They argue that Eden was, but that the Creation is corrupted and becoming increasingly so since the Fall.

Thus, the use of an invisible microorganism as a "necessary" part to life seems unnecessary. Whereas rainclouds and pretty fruit provide aesthetic appeal for Adam and Eve.

And this gets to the crux of my problem with the telelogical argument - and arguing Crevo with philosophy in general. Asking "why is it" is as valueless as saying "it just is". How exactly do you decide what is necessary and what is unnecessary? How do you make a value judgement about the mind of a deity you're ostensibly trying to decide whether it exits or doesn't?

Creationists use the telelogical argument all the time. "Why would God use billions of years to create the Earth when he could just as easily have made it in 6 24 hour days?" This philisophical argument, unfortunately, doesn't address the evidence for the age of the Earth one way or the other, has no real value in the discussion and is easily answered with the similarly valueless "why wouldn't he" or "why are you limiting God's choices".

Which gets back to the rain and the fruit. You response that they're aestetically pleasing doesn't even really make a good telelogical argument. Rain serves to water plant life so that it may grow and the fruit are a way for plants to spread their gametes. Like bacteria they're part of the natural cycle of life on Earth. But rain can cause destructive flooding and lightning can kill people or cause property damage. Why didn't God make the Earth more humid so dew could water plants without destructive storms? Why weren't plants made to be edible from the very beginning (see Bananaman Comfort)? Why do they only produce fruit during certain times of year and not year round in every environment were people live?

You can make as many telelogical arguments about rain and fruit as you can bacteria. They won't add any value to the discussion though. That's why I prefer to stick to the evidence - Radiometric dating, Ice cores, varves, chalk and salt deposits, SN 1987A, etc.

I'm going to snip the rest since you're basically restating your telelogical arguments and I think I've already addressed them.

Why should I extrapolate on something that is self evident?

O.K. fine. :) Just chill on the ALL CAPS.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What is that supposed to mean?

Me being a smartass. :D

[Questioninggeller]

He holds to the Great Flood, Young Earth, and Special Creation. He claims dinosaur and human footprints have been found together in the same fossil, that mind cannot come from matter, that matter cannot be eternal "according to the First Law of Thermodynamics" and other things. He's well-spoken, better at rhetoric than I am, and about forty years older. I would recommend to him some videos by AronRa on YouTube, but he doesn't own a computer, preferring to spend his time reading and praying.

I wish to demonstrate the validity of Evolution to him, but don't know how. Any ideas?

A while back I was employed by a YEC and spent a lot of time talking to him on and off the clock. I learned that no matter the science, evidence, or logic I wasn't going to change his mind because he had "faith." Faith by definition means you must overlook facts and logic.

So I changed my strategy when talking to him. If he could just pluck Bible quotes, so should I. I read the Bible and began to answer back to his quotes with my own show him that the Bible can't be read literally, as YECs do (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm). While I never changed his mind, I did show and got him to admit that he picked and chose what parts of the Bible to read literally. As a result, this gave him reason to be skeptical of YEC, not for scientific reasons, but for religious reasons. From there, he saw how many different types of creationism there was by different literal readings of the Bible.

In sum, fight fire with fire. My advice is not to waste time talking science because YEC don't care about science. YEC is religion and if you want to criticize it use the Bible (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are a good start to show that). Once you put doubt there, then and only then will scientific discussions be fruitful with him.


Edit to add: The YEC claim that dinosaurs and humans lived together can be easily debunked with a Bible reading. Anything the creationists putforth as a dinosaur doesn't fit what we know about dinosaurs. For example, Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis says the Behemoth is a dinosaur (link to video of Answers brainwashing kids with that) (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/29/the-evangelical-war-on-science/), but a quick reading in the Bible dispells that (Job 40 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/job/40.html)--hint a T-Rex can't eat grass. If it gets on all fours how does it stand up again?)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Raze, just for the record, I don't disagree with your conclusion, just with how you arrived at it RE: bacteria. :)

...hint a T-Rex can't eat grass. If it gets on all fours how does it stand up again?)

Are you suggesting T-Rex slept standing up, because otherwise your objection doesn't make any sense. ;)

[vIQleS]

A while back I was employed by a YEC and spent a lot of time talking to him on and off the clock. I learned that no matter the science, evidence, or logic I wasn't going to change his mind because he had "faith." Faith by definition means you must overlook facts and logic.

So I changed my strategy when talking to him. If he could just pluck Bible quotes, so should I. I read the Bible and began to answer back to his quotes with my own show him that the Bible can't be read literally, as YECs do (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm). While I never changed his mind, I did show and got him to admit that he picked and chose what parts of the Bible to read literally. As a result, this gave him reason to be skeptical of YEC, not for scientific reasons, but for religious reasons. From there, he saw how many different types of creationism there was by different literal readings of the Bible.

In sum, fight fire with fire. My advice is not to waste time talking science because YEC don't care about science. YEC is religion and if you want to criticize it use the Bible (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are a good start to show that). Once you put doubt there, then and only then will scientific discussions be fruitful with him.



Good points


Edit to add: The YEC claim that dinosaurs and humans lived together can be easily debunked with a Bible reading. Anything the creationists putforth as a dinosaur doesn't fit what we know about dinosaurs. For example, Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis says the Behemoth is a dinosaur (link to video of Answers brainwashing kids with that) (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/29/the-evangelical-war-on-science/), but a quick reading in the Bible dispells that (Job 40 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/job/40.html)--hint a T-Rex can't eat grass. If it gets on all fours how does it stand up again?)

Not so good. Why would you think that Behemoth was a t-rex? It specifically says that it eats grass - wouldn't your first assumption be that it was a brachiosaur or something? :confused:

I've moved on from YEC, and obviously the passage is describing some sort of mythical creature that just happens to resemble a certain type of dinosaur, but the idea that it is talking about a t-rex is about as silly as asking someone to beleive that it's talking about an elephant.

I can still see why the YECs like the passage, and I would consider it at least good anecdotal evidence for their case. Now if only the rest of the evidence wasn't firmly coming down on the side of evolution...

[Raze]

Not so much. They argue that Eden was, but that the Creation is corrupted and becoming increasingly so since the Fall.



And this gets to the crux of my problem with the telelogical argument - and arguing Crevo with philosophy in general. Asking "why is it" is as valueless as saying "it just is". How exactly do you decide what is necessary and what is unnecessary? How do you make a value judgement about the mind of a deity you're ostensibly trying to decide whether it exits or doesn't?

Creationists use the telelogical argument all the time. "Why would God use billions of years to create the Earth when he could just as easily have made it in 6 24 hour days?" This philisophical argument, unfortunately, doesn't address the evidence for the age of the Earth one way or the other, has no real value in the discussion and is easily answered with the similarly valueless "why wouldn't he" or "why are you limiting God's choices".

Which gets back to the rain and the fruit. You response that they're aestetically pleasing doesn't even really make a good telelogical argument. Rain serves to water plant life so that it may grow and the fruit are a way for plants to spread their gametes. Like bacteria they're part of the natural cycle of life on Earth. But rain can cause destructive flooding and lightning can kill people or cause property damage. Why didn't God make the Earth more humid so dew could water plants without destructive storms? Why weren't plants made to be edible from the very beginning (see Bananaman Comfort)? Why do they only produce fruit during certain times of year and not year round in every environment were people live?

You can make as many telelogical arguments about rain and fruit as you can bacteria. They won't add any value to the discussion though. That's why I prefer to stick to the evidence - Radiometric dating, Ice cores, varves, chalk and salt deposits, SN 1987A, etc.

I'm going to snip the rest since you're basically restating your telelogical arguments and I think I've already addressed them.


But my point is that that line of reasoning is what the creationist uses, and so, if you find disturbing logical conclusions on those terms, the creationist is forced to wonder...

However, the argument I made about Galilean invariance versus Lorentz invariance is much stronger. There is no negative or positive consequence between the two. For all life, the end result would be identical, for all practical purposes. There is no logical reasons to chose to make a universe that is Lorentz covariant over Galilean covariant.




But as I said, these sort of questions only started me on the path. What ultimately decided it for me was the absurdly high plausibility of the theory of evolution.






O.K. fine. :) Just chill on the ALL CAPS.

Sorry, caps are easier to use than bold.

[KingMerv00]

Man, man, man! GREAT LINK!

You like that one? This one (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) is even better. It is informative, scientific, and easily accessable.

It is possibily the best link in all of cyberspace.

[theprestige]

CplFerro, whatever course of action you decide to pursue, please let us know how it goes!

[KingMerv00]

I find that what works best for me is to leave all discussions of politics, sex, and religion out of the workplace.


I think your caution is completely understandable but I don't think it should be a rule of thumb.

I've found many, if not most people to be open to discussion on these kinds of topics. Perhaps you'd be surprised if you tried. Naturally, I wouldn't recommend it for every YEC out there but you shouldn't rule it out. Having a serious, civil discussion like this helps everyone. You might plant a skeptical seed, you might not. At the very least, you will get a better grasp on your own beliefs and learn why you think as you do.