Creationism vs. Evolution: Kansas in Spotlight Again

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
I, quite frankly, don't see what the problem with Intelligent Design is, so long as it uses Evolution as the primary mechanism of change.

You don't see the problem of teaching this in a science class? Since when has science classes ever been a place to discuss metaphysical philosophies?

If IDists don't have a problem with evolutionary mechanisms, then they have no reason to critique how evolution is taught, since that's all it does. Evolutionary education does not deal with the question of God at all, it's not the place of science to do so.

However, you're incorrect to assert that ID accepts evolutionary mechanisms. Behe's and Dembski's "irreducible complexity" argument is an assertion that some systems in living beings must have been created ex nihlo, since they were to complicated to have evolved.

Beyond that is the simple fact that the mechanisms of evolution as currently understood by science are nondeterministic and rely on random genetic mutations. This is incompatible with the ID philosophy that some intelligent entity is actively guiding the process.

It's why, in my opinion, ID is both more palatable and more insidious than straight up belief in fundamentalist Creationism--which explain away things like fossils as God's little joke towards mankind.

If you think that those fundamentalist Creationists aren't behind the ID movement, you're sadly mistaken. Again, the "Wedge Document" by Dembski shows clearly that ID is a back door for creationism into schools. IDists are often disingenuous about their beliefs when discussing it because they like to pretend it's not a theological issue. But the people who are pushing this are all creationists, most of them the old-fashioned Young Earthers.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't see the ID's questioning microevolution, or evolution within a species, since there has been significant evidence shown that this does happen. What they do question is whether the mechanism given by evolutionary theory works for macroevolution given the lack of direct evidence for their theories.

The two are the same process. To accept one is to accept the other.

Intelligent Design isn't an answer to the details of evolutionary theory. It's just a neat version of "we don't know" which would do more to stifle investigation than just letting science get on with things.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is the Creationist rhetorical huckstering at work. The ability to present something that a general audience will find "clear and logical" has no bearing on the truthfulness of the argument. The fact is, like many sciences, evolutionary biology is very, very complicated and the terminology alone presents a huge communication barrier with laypeople that is hard to overcome in an hour-long debate.

Why then did such notables as Carl Sagan, and Isaac Asimov spend so much time in circumventing the terminology in order to distil these arguments for the lay audience? I see many many parallels between scientists and theologians in this regard.

The creationists, for all of their supposed sloth, understand this and have spent a significant amount of time in constructing their arguments so that they will be understood by people without having had training in the discipline at hand.

However, were the audience to be people who knew the science (i.e., scientists and biologists), there wouldn't be an issue as such, and the evolutionary side would easily sweep away its opponent. That's precisely why Creationism and ID have utterly failed to make any scientific arguments whatsoever in the accepted realm of scientific debate: peer-reviewed scientific journals.

First of all, I know a few biochemists, and biophysicists, who would object to this, and would have no problem in showing you wrong here, that evolution would surely triumph in such an audience.

Secondly, this is no different than what you are accusing the creationists of doing, in selecting an audience that you know will be favourably disposed to your own argument.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And theology is a simple subject that can be covered in that same time?

Evolution/Creation debates aren't about theology, so this is a strawman. Creationists set up the debates to attack evolution, and the scientists usually are defending it. No complicated theology is needed. Indeed, as the links I posted show, all the Creationists need is plausible-sounding pseudoscience. If they churn out enough of it, it's very hard for a scientist to explain why they're wrong in a short time span (see the "Gish Gallop" for how this technique is used).

I am not convinced that just because a subject is complicated, that it cannot be argued well in a debate format. The tricky part is to choose how you are going to be presenting your argument.

Absolutely, but you must acknowledge that it's far easier to attack a theory than to defend one when it comes to science of this level.

That being said, I posted several examples of where creationists like Gish were handed their asses in debates by scientists who were prepared for their schtick and were able to focus in on the right things. So you can see right there that, when argued well, evolution does indeed triumph handily, provided the debate format is fair.

If you want to see an example of a ridiculously stupid debate challenge, look up Kent Hovind's $25,000 offer.

[Ben Kenobi]

The two are the same process. To accept one is to accept the other.

Are they? I think you have to import a few assumptions, which are the issue at hand in order to say this. You are begging the question here.

Intelligent Design isn't an answer to the details of evolutionary theory. It's just a neat version of "we don't know" which would do more to stifle investigation than just letting science get on with things.

Knowing what we do not know, and admitting as such is hardly stifling towards scientific progress. After all, didn't Edison say we know less than one tenth, of one percent about anything?

It serves as a spur to achieve greater understanding, once one apprehends the depth of our ignorance.

[Ben Kenobi]

Evolution/Creation debates aren't about theology, so this is a strawman.

Yes they are. They state certain beliefs about the way in which God works on the world, which is the realm of theology.

Creationists set up the debates to attack evolution, and the scientists usually are defending it. No complicated theology is needed.

I've been to one, and the very first point made, is that both sides have the same evidence in front of them, but they must present valid competing theories as to how this evidence came about.

That's the proper debate format, and I have seen many cases of the evolutionist attacking the creationist because that is far easier to do than to present your own thesis. I have also seen ill-prepared biology profs who have underestimated their opponent. I was not impressed by his preparation for the debate.

Indeed, as the links I posted show, all the Creationists need is plausible-sounding pseudoscience. If they churn out enough of it, it's very hard for a scientist to explain why they're wrong in a short time span (see the "Gish Gallop" for how this technique is used).

That doesn't match up with what I have seen, nor the techniques I have heard theologians argue in favour of God working through evolution, rather than merely chance.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why then did such notables as Carl Sagan, and Isaac Asimov spend so much time in circumventing the terminology in order to distil these arguments for the lay audience? I see many many parallels between scientists and theologians in this regard.

Again, it's irrelevant, since such debates aren't about theology. Comparing evolution and theology is a strawman, since they are not in competition, as much as some people may think they are.

And whether or not Sagan or Asimov were that successful in their distillations is arguable, since an overwhelming number of people still harbor a great amount of ignorance about evolution.

Besides, creationists love to attach such distillations over every conceivable omission or abstraction. This is their constant movement of goal posts.

The creationists, for all of their supposed sloth, understand this and have spent a significant amount of time in constructing their arguments so that they will be understood by people without having had training in the discipline at hand.

Creationists arguments are pseudoscientific claptrap, however. They rely on the scientific ignorance of the general public to assert their criticisms, and since they make them sound plausible, people are duped. Scientists have to counter these criticisms often with lengthy and technical explanations as to why they are wrong. People have limited attention spans and prefer short, snappy soundbites to treatises. So guess who has an easier time convincing the uneducated? Creationists, that's who.

First of all, I know a few biochemists, and biophysicists, who would object to this, and would have no problem in showing you wrong here, that evolution would surely triumph in such an audience.

95% of the world's scientists accept evolution, as do 99.9% of the world's biologists (who are actually the ones who study evolution, not biochemists or biophysicists). Evolution has already triumphed in science, and it did so over 100 years ago. Creationists just can't accept that, even though science did long ago.

Secondly, this is no different than what you are accusing the creationists of doing, in selecting an audience that you know will be favourably disposed to your own argument.

So an audience of scientists are automatically going to be biased in favor of evolution? What happened to those biochemists/biophysicists you mentioned above?

Look, peer-review is how science works. I can't think of any other reasonable way in which science should undergo review. Science is not decided by the court of public opinion, simple as that.

You're implying, just like the loony fundies, that there's a conspiracy of world scientists out to cover up the flaws of evolution and keep down ID. It's both preposterous and insulting.

[Ben Kenobi]

Science is not decided by the court of public opinion, simple as that.

So why educate the public about science then, rather than dictating to them? Education is not supposed to be an authoritarian process under the liberal understanding of the word.

What the public considers important and vital to their interests is significant to science, because without the support of the public, they will not be able to conduct their endeavours to the same degree as previous.

You're implying, just like the loony fundies, that there's a conspiracy of world scientists out to cover up the flaws of evolution and keep down ID. It's both preposterous and insulting.

Where do I say that, Boris?

People have limited attention spans and prefer short, snappy soundbites to treatises. So guess who has an easier time convincing the uneducated? Creationists, that's who.

I have seen scientists adopt soundbites particularly when their funding is up for review. Why are the obviously intelligent scientists unwilling to take the public into consideration when postulating their theories?

95% of the world's scientists accept evolution, as do 99.9% of the world's biologists (who are actually the ones who study evolution, not biochemists or biophysicists). Evolution has already triumphed in science, and it did so over 100 years ago. Creationists just can't accept that, even though science did long ago.

Even if 100 percent of scientists today believe that evolution were true as a theory, then that would put it much like other theories have been in the past. It does not prevent science from progressing.

In fact, to decide that everything within evolution is canon, and cannot be questioned, is a statement that truly stifles scientific investigation.

Again, it's irrelevant, since such debates aren't about theology. Comparing evolution and theology is a strawman, since they are not in competition, as much as some people may think they are.

You might think they are not, but I think they are, and I have given an argument as to why they are offering competing theories for the same evidence. I suggest you address the argument, rather than blustering past it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are they? I think you have to import a few assumptions, which are the issue at hand in order to say this. You are begging the question here.

No, they are the same. The distinction is a false one made up by Creationists who are more interested in word games and symantics than biology.

macroevolution is nothing more than a large-scale accumulation of microevolutionary changes. There has never been shown to be any magical barrier to these changes. One would have to make a bald-ass "assumption" for such a barrier to exist, as there is no proof.

Also, your claim that macroevolution has not been proven is categorically false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Knowing what we do not know, and admitting as such is hardly stifling towards scientific progress. After all, didn't Edison say we know less than one tenth, of one percent about anything?

It serves as a spur to achieve greater understanding, once one apprehends the depth of our ignorance.

What about saying "God did it!" without any empirical evidence in any way enhances a scientific theory? You know full well that Edison wasn't arguing for using God in science when he said that, anyway.

[MrFun]

interesting posts from both, Ben and Boris

(although I agree with Boris's arguments)

[KrazyHorse]

4 years of college tuition: 100000$
Internet connection: 30$
Yet another chance to pwn Ben: Priceless

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
4 years of college tuition: 100000$
Internet connection: 30$
Yet another chance to pwn Ben: Priceless

[KrazyHorse]

I beginning to be convinced that Ben is somebody's sick joke.

Dude, are you seriously from the same country I'm from?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes they are. They state certain beliefs about the way in which God works on the world, which is the realm of theology.

No, they don't. They state beliefs about scientific mechanisms. It is a false dichotomy to believe that to accept evolution, one must deny religion or faith. Evolutionary theory states NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING about theology, period. There is positively no theological component to the theory of evolution, any more than there is a theological component to calculus or gravity.

And I'd be curious to know what deep, difficult religious philosophy is needed in a debate over evolution. One that is as complicated as evolutionary biology, as you assert. I find this a laughable assertion.

Hey, I posted several debate analyses and transcripts. Why don't you look for the deep theology in those? There isn't any, but you can look.

I've been to one, and the very first point made, is that both sides have the same evidence in front of them, but they must present valid competing theories as to how this evidence came about.

Explain to me the theory of Creationism and how it's such a complicated one that laypeople would have difficulty understanding it, especially people who have spent their entire lives in a Judeo-Christian country. To claim this is in any way profoundly deep theology is ludicrous. The kind of theology that is very complicated and philosophical isn't remotely the subject of these debates.

That's the proper debate format, and I have seen many cases of the evolutionist attacking the creationist because that is far easier to do than to present your own thesis. I have also seen ill-prepared biology profs who have underestimated their opponent. I was not impressed by his preparation for the debate.

This is exactly what I was saying about the debates, you're only supporting what I wrote. When prepared and they know their opponents, scientists mop up.

It still doesn't change the fact that debates aren't won on purely factual grounds, they are (in cases like these) more often "won" on rhetorical and personality grounds. Charm an audience, and you "win," no matter if what you presented was garbage.

That doesn't match up with what I have seen, nor the techniques I have heard theologians argue in favour of God working through evolution, rather than merely chance.

I have never seen a debate nor read a transcript that in any way focuses on theology at more than a cursory, superficial level.

Why would a biologist come to a debate to argue theology? It's not in their realm, and it certainly would be foolish to do so, as theology is utterly not science.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
theology is utterly not science.

Well, I could see a science of religion (as a subdivision of social and psychological sciences), but it wouldn't be the same thing at all than the theology Ben is thinking of