How to argue with a creationist

[Higgeldy]

Thanks for this episode.

The only thing more frustrating than confronting a creationist is confronting a creationist and realising, mid debate, that you aren't well enough prepared to counter plausable sounding but silly arguments (I heard a radio programme about the 'flat earth society.' Apparently, even in very recent times, members of the society used to win debates on the subject because they were much better rehearsed in all the arguments and their counters.)

I saw a news item about the creationist museum. They interviewed one very ordinary Mum outside the museum with her two kids and she said, "It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism."

One aspect of the creationist argument that really gets to me is the idea that it only takes evolution to be wrong for creationism to be right. I've tried for some time to come up with an analogy for this. Until recently I thought something like this was good:

Let's say we didn't know where Christmas presents came from and that, after much study of one household, scientists put forward the theory that grand parents, with a spare key, came into the house at night and placed the presents under the tree. Let's call it 'the grand parent theory.' Just because there might be flaws in the grand parent theory and the theory might even, in the future, change considerably it doesn't logically follow that father christmas exists.

It is an entertaining analogy but it's a little long winded and not very elegant. I recently came up with a much better one: The giants causeway.

There are two explanations for the pavement of interlocking hexagonal columns on the north east coast of Northern Ireland. One involves an Irish giant who builds the causeway in order to walk to Scotland so he can fight a Scottish giant. The second is a scientific theory that the columns were created by rapidly cooling lava. Even if the theory of rapidly cooling lava is thrown over in favour of some other competing scientific theory it doesn't follow that the thing with the giants is true.

I'm off on holiday to Greece soon with some born again Christians so I will be prepared incase the subject comes up. It won't of course. We'll have a great time and I'll be reminded that you don't have to share the same beliefs to be friends and have fun.

[Zep]

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com, and have them explain the contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)...all of them.

PS. Don't EVER allow an argument that says "creationism is good because evolution is bad". That is no support for their POV. Get them to make any sort of convincing argument that "creationism IS scientific" without reference to evolution at all. They always fail that one!

[Beady]

Try reading How to Debate a Creationist (http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=b007PB&Category_Code=). It's free if you order other books; $5 if you don't.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Aaaarggh! I *********** hate these bastards! Please Brian Dunning, let me slap Garry Webb upside his sanctimonious, self righteous stupid, pig ignorant, dumb ass, head. So smug in their total delusion. ARRRGHH! AAAARRRRGHHH!

[Marius vanderLubbe]

I'm off on holiday to Greece soon with some born again Christians so I will be prepared incase the subject comes up. It won't of course. We'll have a great time and I'll be reminded that you don't have to share the same beliefs to be friends and have fun.Planning some hot tubbing?

[briandunning]

Rather than slapping Garry Webb upside the head, I recommend instead listening to him very closely. He does a pretty good job of expressing the usual arguments against evolution. He's great to practice on. I really wish he'd come into the forums or onto Skeptalk though for some real-time debate. :)

[ChaoticLimbs]

If you must slap a creationist upside the head, please use a marsupial mammal such as a wallaby to do this. It is far more effective.
Platypuses and other monotremes are also effective, particularly the echidna. Removal of the echidna after slapping can be done with the tapered, flat bill of a platypus. Just grab any old platypus you have lying around and use it as a spatula to remove the echidna from the creationist.
Repeat the creationists argument back to him in your most sarcastic baby voice, laugh three times, and repeat the echidna / platypus treatment until he relents.

[articulett]

If you must slap a creationist upside the head, please use a marsupial mammal such as a wallaby to do this. It is far more effective.
Platypuses and other monotremes are also effective, particularly the echidna. Removal of the echidna after slapping can be done with the tapered, flat bill of a platypus. Just grab any old platypus you have lying around and use it as a spatula to remove the echidna from the creationist.
Repeat the creationists argument back to him in your most sarcastic baby voice, laugh three times, and repeat the echidna / platypus treatment until he relents.

I don't want to be alarmist, but use the female platypus. The male has that awful spur thing. Yeowch. ( Fool me once, shame on the platypus...)

[Bethany]

I think it's clear that the Giant's Causeway was built by a giant. :)

[Henners]

I think it's clear that the Giant's Causeway was built by a giant. :)

The clue's in the name.

[NoAstronomer]

The clue's in the name.

So who built the Hudson River?

[Madalch]

So who built the Hudson River?
Nobody built it- it simply leaked out of Hudson's Bay, which was built by Hudson in an effort to make his rival, a Mr. James, look puny.

[Fnord]

I think it's clear that the Giant's Causeway was built by a giant. :)
The clue's in the name.

Giants Caused the Way to be built.

Link?

;)

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Rather than slapping Garry Webb upside the head, I recommend instead listening to him very closely. He does a pretty good job of expressing the usual arguments against evolution. He's great to practice on. I really wish he'd come into the forums or onto Skeptalk though for some real-time debate. :)
I would imagine that would be unlikely. I do like the concept of bashing him with monotremes however. A larger placental smiting would render satisfaction and a good deal of righteous damage on the holy visage. Perhaps a polar bear or a bengal tiger. Have a look at evolution real close up.
Jokes aside, I do not feel the need to be polite to these nitwits. They have chosen the path of fear, ignorance And superstition all on their own. One of the conciquences of this volentary cretinism is they are gonna get scorn heaped on them. I have no problems letting them have it again when they turn the other cheek. Just dont expect me to do likewise, godbotherers. The only faithers and general adherants to woo that i think have any cred are the Hamish , who at least practice what they preach, and are happy to leave me well alone. One of the possible out comes of my policy is it will probably give the holy the selfrightious satisfaction that I am the name calling brute, and they are the calm rational one who would never result to such base profanity. Well suck my motherphuqueingdickyoukiddiefiddlingwifebeatingwom anhatingmindwarpingpigignorant sisterfingerbanginglowforeheadedtheivingmurderingb ytheologyhalfwits. I have tried all the nice ways of playing with you belivers, and found it wanting.
I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more.

[briandunning]

My point was more that intelligent debate with Garry is a useful way to prepare us all for other such debates in the real world.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

My point was more that intelligent debate with Garry is a useful way to prepare us all for other such debates in the real world.

Sure Brian, I understand. My point is however, that we can debate logically, rationally and intelligently with these guys till we are blue in the mouth, and it will in all probability, not make an iota of difference. They are not playing by the same rules. God is infallible. Thats all there is for them. My patience is far from infinite. I understand that rational debate is needed against the armies of the night (cheers Carl), but my rational tank was emptied by these yobbos a while back, so now I just say what i think. If the faithful and woofull were a harmless phenomena then I wouldnt bother my ass. But they are not harmless, and dont we know it.
I could stand infront of a room full of Baboons and explain the laws of thermodynamics with perfect diction, with easy to follow diagrams and a break for refreshments every 2 hours,(banana squishies most likely) and at the end of the day they would still be a room full of Baboons.
Garry and his gang are similar,but worse in that they actually have a choice. Or perhaps not. How many believers have been turned to the light of reason? I'm sure there are some examples somewhere other than myself. Then I was about 10 and worked it out for myself. I would really like to know what the remission rate is for believers.

[Higgeldy]

Thanks for your responses. The holiday has happened and I'm back in a cold and damp UK. There were four of us: My mate, a lapsed, male 'born again' Christian, (a rare example of a christian who has gone into remission. Mainly because of popular science books rather than my shining example) and four very commited female Christians (so no hot tubbing.) We were in Greece; a beautiful country that makes you really appreciate things like: road markings, the highway code and plumbing.

We had a great time and, as I suspected, the creationism thing didn't come up. Just aswell actually. It turned out you can't get a marsupial in Greece for love nor money. I can report that one of the women was reading Bryson's 'A short history of nearly everything.'

One thing I did notice was a change in my relationship with Christians. Now that I've found the skeptical community I feel like I'm part of a vast group of people who, for the most part, share my outlook on Christianity and other religions. I'm much more confident around them and more sure of my position. It's a great feeling.

I stand corrected on the Giant's Causeway ;)

[The Grave]

Hi Marius it's Griff ( I mean.. The Grave) ... you have to 'fit in here' if you know what I mean....

Higgeldy.... the only good thing I learnt from the Bryson book was that 8 people's DNA can reach from the Earth to the Sun...:seteacher:

the rest was boring geology... like reading The Seven Pillars Of Wisdom... which livens up at the end... but Bryson's doesn't!

As for Hot Tubbing with christians... trust me it happens!:uk:

Griff...

[sinclairmcevoy]

Aaaarggh! I *********** hate these bastards! Please Brian Dunning, let me slap Garry Webb upside his sanctimonious, self righteous stupid, pig ignorant, dumb ass, head. So smug in their total delusion. ARRRGHH! AAAARRRRGHHH!That may be so, but keep in mind that they view others in the same light. When both sides believe they are right, it doesn't matter who is.

[sinclairmcevoy]

I would imagine that would be unlikely. I do like the concept of bashing him with monotremes however. A larger placental smiting would render satisfaction and a good deal of righteous damage on the holy visage. Perhaps a polar bear or a bengal tiger. Have a look at evolution real close up.
Jokes aside, I do not feel the need to be polite to these nitwits. They have chosen the path of fear, ignorance And superstition all on their own. One of the conciquences of this volentary cretinism is they are gonna get scorn heaped on them. I have no problems letting them have it again when they turn the other cheek. Just dont expect me to do likewise, godbotherers. The only faithers and general adherants to woo that i think have any cred are the Hamish , who at least practice what they preach, and are happy to leave me well alone. One of the possible out comes of my policy is it will probably give the holy the selfrightious satisfaction that I am the name calling brute, and they are the calm rational one who would never result to such base profanity. Well suck my motherphuqueingdickyoukiddiefiddlingwifebeatingwom anhatingmindwarpingpigignorant sisterfingerbanginglowforeheadedtheivingmurderingb ytheologyhalfwits. I have tried all the nice ways of playing with you belivers, and found it wanting.
I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more.By the way, you don't have to be religious to be any of the above things you mentioned. Keep beating your head against that wall though, it'll feel good when you stop.

[Suggestologist]

One aspect of the creationist argument that really gets to me is the idea that it only takes evolution to be wrong for creationism to be right.

Well, a Polya pattern of plausibility: If there are (only) two competing hypotheses, then disproving one, makes the other one (seem) much more plausible.

I've tried for some time to come up with an analogy for this. Until recently I thought something like this was good:

Let's say we didn't know where Christmas presents came from and that, after much study of one household, scientists put forward the theory that grand parents, with a spare key, came into the house at night and placed the presents under the tree. Let's call it 'the grand parent theory.' Just because there might be flaws in the grand parent theory and the theory might even, in the future, change considerably it doesn't logically follow that father christmas exists.

It is an entertaining analogy but it's a little long winded and not very elegant. I recently came up with a much better one: The giants causeway.

There are two explanations for the pavement of interlocking hexagonal columns on the north east coast of Northern Ireland. One involves an Irish giant who builds the causeway in order to walk to Scotland so he can fight a Scottish giant. The second is a scientific theory that the columns were created by rapidly cooling lava. Even if the theory of rapidly cooling lava is thrown over in favour of some other competing scientific theory it doesn't follow that the thing with the giants is true.

Why are you making your counterexamples so abstract and complicated? Relate it directly to the person you are talking to. Let's say they are wearing a cool necklace. One hypothesis is that Zeus made if for them. The other hypothesis is that their mom bought it for them. Proving that their mom didn't buy it for them, doesn't mean/prove that Zeus made it for them.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

[QUOTE=The Grave;3060943]Hi Marius it's Griff ( I mean.. The Grave) ... you have to 'fit in here' if you know what I mean....


Well Gravox, i don't know what I have to do to "fit" in, but that is quite low on my list of priorities. I'm not here to make high fivin' good buddies. I'm here to say what i think.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

By the way, you don't have to be religious to be any of the above things you mentioned. Keep beating your head against that wall though, it'll feel good when you stop.
Why thanks ever so much. So very kind of you, and hardly patronising at all.

[alfaniner]

At a post-meeting small talk, one guy was telling me about his trip to the southeast U.S, and mentioned that one of his stops was the Creation Museum. I asked if that was just "as a point of curiosity, or..." and he said "Oh, I thought it was well done." At that point, I knew it was time to end the conversation as anything I said from there on would probably get me into trouble.

What surprises me is, this guy is probably the most intelligent of the entire group, as far as work goes. I suppose his comment could be taken a different way, but for discretion's sake I let it slide.

[dahduh]

I've found that people fall into three classes: those that are genuninely ignorant and don't have an axe to grind one way or another; those who are less ignorant but ideologically entrained; and those who are dogmatists.

The first lot you can have a fruitful discussion with. You can confront the facts directly and they will listen and maybe even think about it. Alfiner's visitor to the creationist museum may have been such a person, and it might have been worth asking a few questions.

The second lot are usually aware of the arguments but because they are uncomfortable with challenges to their beliefs, will usually try to shut down the debate and change the subject. Invariably however, such people do have their doubts and would talk about them in a non-threatening environment. Inhibitions can sometimes be overcome by approaching subjects tangentially, and applying lots of humour and alchohol. For example, describing the diabolical lie in a non-religious and humorous context and then making an off-the-cuff remark like 'of course, religions use diabolical lies too', can help unstitch their inquisitorial inhibitions.

I think dogmatists just enjoy being obtuse, and they are a waste of skin. Smack 'em with a wallaby by all means, but it won't do any good.

A note: there are ethical considerations that should thought through before trying to change someone's world view. I used to think that it was sometimes better to just leave someone with their delusions, but now I believe this view is simply condescending. However, you don't want to break up someone's marriage because one spouse becomes pursuaded by your arguments. In such an instance, tackle them both at the same time.