Creationism vs. Evolution: Kansas in Spotlight Again

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what you are saying that if the argument can be presented in a clear and logical fashion so that most people can understand, it must be less true than a more complicated argument that cannot?

Seems backwards to me.

It's just you.

Evolution is a complicated subject that covers a huge area, from geology to paleotology to genetics and biochemistry. Now how do you present evidence from even one of these scientific fields in 15 or 20 minutes while large tomes have been written?

[dannubis]

bwa, let them in kansas tach creatonism. i'm sure they will be evolved out...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what you are saying that if the argument can be presented in a clear and logical fashion so that most people can understand, it must be less true than a more complicated argument that cannot?

Seems backwards to me.

I would think that had the arguments for evolution been stronger you would be citing the debates as proof in their superiority.

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.

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.

This is why this kangaroo court exists: they know they can't win on the science ground, so they've shifted it to the court of public opinion as an end-run around the scientific peer review process. That's their only hope of getting it into schools. Well, public opinion means precisely diddly-squat when it comes to scientific truths.

But, if you want an example of the evilutionist triumphing in debate:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html

More examples here, both of victories and of people foundering on Creationists tricks:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html

One final note is that, by and large, scientists are not the best, most entertaining public speakers. Indeed, they tend to be methodical but dull. That's another way Creationists like Duane Gish and Philip Johnson have "won" debates--they are much more captivating public speakers, and layperson audiences in debates are generally won over by style more than substance, especially when they don't easily grasp the science.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/gish.html

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
Maybe not. The Scopes trial was a big win for reason in the end.

Sadly, this isn't a comparable situation. What we have here is a panel of a majority Creationist make-up who have already come to their conclusion. The entire scenario is a set-up just to get a lot of publicity and then have a "verdict" that validates Intelligent Design. It wouldn't matter who participated nor how lucidly explained the science was. If you go to the Panda's Thumb blog, you can find the history of the KS panel and read how they've been colluding with the IDists over this for some time. Look up the "Wedge Document" and you can see the IDists' very own mein kampf.*





* - Not intended to allude to anyone being a Nazi.

[MrFun]

teh Boris has pwned teh Ben

[Q Classic]

Well, I don't think Ben, if he's hewing to Catholic theology, is arguing on the side of Creationism.

After all, the pope has decreed that Evolution is all part of God's Master Planâ„¢, which would, of course, place it in the vicinity of Intelligent Design.

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. Virtually everything humans have made has changed over time, in an evolutionary process, and largely guided by the hands of something presumed to be intelligent.

Can this be applied to life? Well, it depends on whether you believe in a God or not.

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.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by dannubis
bwa, let them in kansas tach creatonism. i'm sure they will be evolved out...

We've been over this before, Kansas has a particularly high fertility rate. So if there is one group that isn't going to be selected out of existence it is the creationists

[Odin]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Well, I don't think Ben, if he's hewing to Catholic theology, is arguing on the side of Creationism.

After all, the pope has decreed that Evolution is all part of God's Master Planâ„¢, which would, of course, place it in the vicinity of Intelligent Design.

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. Virtually everything humans have made has changed over time, in an evolutionary process, and largely guided by the hands of something presumed to be intelligent.

Can this be applied to life? Well, it depends on whether you believe in a God or not.

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.

ID is mental lazyiness, it's a "god-in-the gaps" argument. Things that are unexplained are unexplained because we don't have the data at the present time to explian them, not that we will never explain it and so have to resort to mystical BS.

[Lul Thyme]

Ben, explaining relativity or quantum theory properly to a lay audience in a few hours is hard.
Proving them to those people even more.
They are still among the most tested and verified theory and together, account for the best prediction power of natural processes that human have ever had in history.
(I am sidestepping the fact that they contradict each other, thats a minor issue in this context.)
Many aspects of evolution are just a slight notch below that.
They are as much facts as anything in science can be. Like newton's gravitation (which was "true" but improved upon, even though conceptually its not accepted anymore).
Real scientists still argue over many of the details of evolution, but arguing over the fact that it can and did happen with the amount of evidence present for that side is sign of bad faith.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Odin


ID is mental lazyiness, it's a "god-in-the gaps" argument. Things that are unexplained are unexplained because we don't have the data at the present time to explian them, not that we will never explain it and so have to resort to mystical BS.

Exactly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Evolution is a complicated subject that covers a huge area, from geology to paleotology to genetics and biochemistry. Now how do you present evidence from even one of these scientific fields in 15 or 20 minutes while large tomes have been written?

And theology is a simple subject that can be covered in that same time?

The key is not to throw the entire mass of a discipline at the debate, but to choose points that are your strongest evidence in favour of your position.

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, explaining relativity or quantum theory properly to a lay audience in a few hours is hard.

No different from theology in those regards. Distilling the argument using analogies is a skill, that can be equally used to support scientific arguments as it is used for theological ones.

Proving them to those people even more.

They are still among the most tested and verified theory and together, account for the best prediction power of natural processes that human have ever had in history.

Granted. Even given that they have held up to scrutiny, does not mean that your second statement is any less true.

Many aspects of evolution are just a slight notch below that.

And here is my point. The fact that by your own standards, evolutionary theories are less proven than quantum mechanics or relativity is a significant concession. Rather than belabouring the creationists, the scrutiny ought to be welcomed as an opportunity to improve our understanding of the relationships between different species, and how they change over time.

Real scientists still argue over many of the details of evolution, but arguing over the fact that it can and did happen with the amount of evidence present for that side is sign of bad faith.

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.

I grant that the subject matter is difficult to test, but that is just more reason on the part of caution for theorist to come to any conclusions based on the dearth of available data.

[chequita guevara]

If there's an intelligent designer to the universe, then explain the existence of creationists.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If there's an intelligent designer to the universe, then explain the existence of creationists.

He let mankind evolve, so that mankind could create its own brand of stupidity

(This argument is actually coherent with the Christian ideal of free will )

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I don't think Ben, if he's hewing to Catholic theology, is arguing on the side of Creationism.

After all, the pope has decreed that Evolution is all part of God's Master Planâ„¢, which would, of course, place it in the vicinity of Intelligent Design.

Yep, I'm not a creationist per se, and I have never been one. I used to be in astronomy, and much of what astronomers believe in cosmology is based upon assumptions of the age of the universe being much greater than 6K years.

I object more to the mechanism postulated, that such changes can be initated through chance rather than by God.