I'm quite divided on the issue. On one hand,I agree with Richard Dawkins: debating those idiotic Creationists gives them some sort of an ill-deserved platform.

However, after reading the article below, I am now quite undecided.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolut ... g-them-now

What are your opinions on this though? Please, do read the article to understand where I am coming from.

Yes we should debate them. By pointing out it is not a debate.

If there has to be a debate it must be on scientists' terms, and it should also demand high evidential standards for whatever gets argued, then humiliate the clowns by pointing out none of their "evidence" stands up to scrutiny and none of their evidence is capable of passing peer review.

Theologians should debate each other, whether evolution is compatible with a belief in God or not.

I think the case for not debating them is much stronger. In particular the point about simply debating the subject, regardless of the outcome of the debate, seems to lend credence to the suggestion that it is a matter of debate.

Additionally, the average public individual will have a hard time weighing the arguments presented in such a short time, and may come away from a debate with the wrong impression, despite the possible fact that the "losing" side was factually correct.

In my opinion there is nothing to be gained in these debates, and the creationists should be doing science instead of debating if they want to be taken seriously. Debating them means taking them seriously without them doing any science. In a debate all you have is two guys throwing words and paragraphs at each other, and it would be difficult for a scientist to properly convey the invested time, rigour and effort in doing actual laboratory and field research in support of scientific postulates...

No, no debates should be had.

I would like to see a debate in which the empirical evidence for "random" and "spontaneous" and "singularity" are presented.

I wonder how many "clowns" would be humiliated then.

If the absence of evidence translates as evidence of absence then it should be a fairly balanced debate.

In the meantime, refusal to debate your opponent is a really bad strategy for everyone except those who fear that they may end up looking like "clowns"

"Can't be bothered debating"?
"Dont want to give my opponents credibility"?
"There's nothing to debate"?
"I'm too highly educated to lower myself to their level"?
"I feel sorry for them so I won't debate them"?
"I know I would win anyway so it's a waste of time"?
"It's a private atheism convention - no theists allowed"?

Uh huh! Sure!

Lion (IRC)

Actually, after having read the article op linked, I have reversed my position in light of new evidence. Apparently I was underestimating the intelligence and curiousity of the average debate watcher. It seems there really IS a case to be made in front of an audience, and that people are (propably mostly as a consequence of the sheer idiocy of creationist claims) generally able to spot the difference between blind assertion and a properly supported scientific case.

Sometimes I enjoy being proven wrong.

TheAznValedictorian wrote:I'm quite divided on the issue. On one hand,I agree with Richard Dawkins: debating those idiotic Creationists gives them some sort of an ill-deserved platform.

However, after reading the article below, I am now quite undecided.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolut ... g-them-now

What are your opinions on this though? Please, do read the article to understand where I am coming from.

In short yes. But beware of their tricks of the trade, and be aware of your own limitations.
Creationist debaters are typically trained in rhetoric, speeches and so on. They're essentially specialists at verbally convincing people. It's got nothing to do with science, and all to do with making it seem like they know what they're doing. To beat them, you need to be aware not only of how rhetoric works, and how it convinces people, but of the tricks, lies, and deceits they will use.
Not everyone is a great debater. Scientists in general are not trained to debate. And public speaking isn't something that comes naturally either. To be able to debate effectively, and have access to the vast amount of science needed to refute the host of bullshit that will be throw your way is very very hard. People who can do that are few and far between. And they really probably do mostly have better things to be doing with their lives.
So, for a traditional debate, I'd be very cautious, unless you can arrange a team that nicely compliments itself and is exceptional in having oratory skills, good logic and a science background.
I for one suck at public speaking. But I've a reasonable science background and strong logic. So I'm sticking to these here internetty debates.

Now, for all that I've just described why it's hard to do, I still think it's important. Because lies shouldn't go unchallenged. Because otherwise intelligent people can end up believing this crap.

A big problem as far as I'm aware is creationists using the 'gish gallop'.

Lion IRC wrote:I would like to see a debate in which the empirical evidence for "random" and "spontaneous" and "singularity" are presented.

I wonder how many "clowns" would be humiliated then.

If the absence of evidence translates as evidence of absence then it should be a fairly balanced debate.

In the meantime, refusal to debate your opponent is a really bad strategy for everyone except those who fear that they may end up looking like "clowns"

"Can't be bothered debating"?
"Dont want to give my opponents credibility"?
"There's nothing to debate"?
"I'm too highly educated to lower myself to their level"?
"I feel sorry for them so I won't debate them"?
"I know I would win anyway so it's a waste of time"?
"It's a private atheism convention - no theists allowed"?

Uh huh! Sure!

Lion (IRC)

Define random, singularity & spontaneous, you've been indulging in the same old bits of discoursive malfeasance that I remember you employing on RDF, go on, define them first, I don't want to see any equivocation.

"Can't be bothered debating"?
"Dont want to give my opponents credibility"?

Debating established science is done through the appropriate peer-reviewed channels, and that is open for submission of evidence if it holds up to empirical scrutiny, the option to give cretinists credibility is open, if they do manage to produce proper science and make an impact through the setup already in place.

"There's nothing to debate"?
"I'm too highly educated to lower myself to their level"?

See above again.

"I feel sorry for them so I won't debate them"?
"I know I would win anyway so it's a waste of time"?

A rhetorical debate again is not the way scientific validity of postulates is established, learn this lesson once and for all.

"It's a private atheism convention - no theists allowed"?

Uh huh! Sure!

Atheists like Dr.Kenneth Miller and Dr.Ayala? Right.

Lion IRC wrote:I would like to see a debate in which the empirical evidence for "random"

Random what?

and "spontaneous"

Spontaneous what? You can't just throw "random" words out and expect a coherent response. Just what are you actually asking here?

and "singularity" are presented.

The funny thing is, I think I may know why you picked "random" and "spontaneous" but I can't be bothered detailing my speculations and will simply await your definitions and how you think they apply.

But when you throw singularity in there, I really start to wonder exactly what you are trying to say. I have ever only heard the word singularity refer to three things :
A mathematical singularity. A mathematical concept.
A singularity within space and time : A black hole.
A proposed model for a state the universe was in, sometime in the distant past.

Whatever you are trying to argue, I somehow doubt that it relates to you having issues with mathematical concepts, or the existence of black holes.
Which brings us to proposed models for the state of matter of the early universe. This somehow confuses me even more because, are you arguing against the proposal that the universe could be described as a singularity "before"/"at" the big bang? If so, why?

Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?

Aboslutely! Then after that's over we can get some Astronomers to debate some Star Trek fans about the location of the planet Vulcan.

Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?

Some more articles on the topic:

Debates and the Globetrotters by Eugenie Scott

The November-December 2004 Issue of the Reports of the National Centre for Science Education (RNCSE 24 (6)) deals with the topic of debating creationists. There are several good articles about this topic in it:

Challenging Creationist Debaters by Edward E Max
Confronting Creationism: When and How by Eugenie C Scott
Debates: The Drive-By Shootings of Critical Thinking by Karen E Bartelt
Then A Miracle Occurs... by Michael Shermer
Winning the Creation Debate by Frank J Sonleitner

Lark

If honesty were a criteria for a debate the creationists would have to bow out every time. Their deceit is absolutely disgusting.

What I'd really love to see is a debate between a Christian creationist and someone holding a rival, but equally crazy viewpoint - eg a believer in David Icke's theory about shapeshifting alien reptiles, or a Hellenic creationist. It would be really interesting to see how they'd go against someone who uses the same dodgy tactics they do, with the same fallacious arguments, but for a completely different conclusion (but still equally ridiculous). Of course, they'd never agree to this, because it would completely expose how vapid some of their tactics are, especially if they were to come across a Scientologist who is better at it than they are, and is able to present a more convincing case for the idea that life came to Earth aboard DC-10s containing the galaxy's surplus population so that Xenu could herd them all around volcanoes before blowing them all up with hydrogen bombs, than the Creationist is able to manage for their viewpoint. Still, it's nice to imagine.

TheAznValedictorian wrote:I'm quite divided on the issue. On one hand,I agree with Richard Dawkins: debating those idiotic Creationists gives them some sort of an ill-deserved platform.

However, after reading the article below, I am now quite undecided.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolut ... g-them-now

What are your opinions on this though? Please, do read the article to understand where I am coming from.

On the one hand, I too understand Dawkins' point about giving creationists what has been termed "the oxygen of publicity", and understand that it's a central part of their duplicity to regard any public recognition of them as being some sort of perverse 'victory', that they regard this as legitimising their ideas, and even worse, regard this as placing their ideas on an equal footing with valid, evidence-based science.

But if the rampant errors and deliberate discoursive malfeasance emanating from creationism isn't tackled head-on, my view is that it will be like cancer - far more difficult and dangerous to treat if left to an advanced stage. And let's make no mistake about it, creationism IS an ideological cancer eating away at everything that has been won by hard effort since the beginning of the Enlightenment. Its ideological stormtroopers are, not to put too fine a point on it, Torquemada wannabees who delight in the thought of turning back the clock of human civilisation to the 12th century, and who in some cases are manifestly manoeuvring into position as the future enforcers of conformity to doctrine, revelling in the smell of the burning flesh of their victims. If you want an example of this attitude, just look at Dembski's remarks about forcing evolutionary biologists to appear before kangaroo courts headed by him and his ilk.

The Jewish community learned this lesson the hard way with respect to the festering canker sore that is Holocaust revisionism. Initially, they ignored it. They treated it as the outpourings of the illiterate, the deranged and in some cases the outright criminal, and regarded it as beneath deserving attention. They made the mistake of thinking that the average person wouldn't fall for the excrement being peddled by the likes of Ditlieb Felderer and David Irving. But they soon learned that this was a mistake, and now, the policy of organisations dedicated to the facts about the Holocaust, and to rigorous scholarship on this subject, is to tackle the Holocaust deniers head on with every atom of firepower they can muster. Now, the Jewish community adopts a policy of 'launch on warning' with respect to the Irvings and Felderers of this world.

Likewise, I consider a similar policy apposite with respect to creationist lies. I don't for one moment think that the assorted professional liars for doctrine should be treated with any respect, because they deserve none. Indeed, I would urge anyone taking on the likes of Stephen Meyer face to face, to make manifest from the outset disgust at the duplicitous tactics they adopt, and scorn and derision at the pathetic pseudo-ideas they peddle. Give these professional liars for doctrine NO quarter whatsoever, because they have displayed a level of ruthlessness and mendacity in pursuit of their ideology that would have made Lavrenti Beria blanch.

GenesForLife wrote:If there has to be a debate it must be on scientists' terms, and it should also demand high evidential standards for whatever gets argued, then humiliate the clowns by pointing out none of their "evidence" stands up to scrutiny and none of their evidence is capable of passing peer review.

Whilst being strongly minded to agree with the above, I think it should be emphasised right from the start that what we are dealing with is NOT an "alternative scientific view", but blatant lying for doctrine, lying which includes duplicitous abuse of science by treating it as a branch of apologetics. This should be made crystal clear at the outset, any audience should informed right from the beginning that creationists lie for their doctrine, and examples of said lies that can be quickly and easily demonstrated to be lies should be brought into play as early as possible, in order to establish that this isn't a genuine battleground of ideas, it's a battleground upon which valid science is being routinely traduced and perverted for ideological ends by fetishists for mythology.

Meanwhile:

Larkus wrote:Theologians should debate each other, whether evolution is compatible with a belief in God or not.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about theologians. As far as I'm concerned, they're in the business of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications for the purpose of providing the illusion of justification for presuppositions that have no basis in reality. When these people can provide a rigorous basis for their eructations, I'll sit up and take notice. Until then, I shall feel free to regard them as an irrelevance as far as []reality[/b] is concerned.

Rumraket wrote:I think the case for not debating them is much stronger. In particular the point about simply debating the subject, regardless of the outcome of the debate, seems to lend credence to the suggestion that it is a matter of debate.

As I've stated above, I consider it far more important that nonsense is exposed as being nonsense, and that duplicitous purveyors thereof are exposed as being precisely that.

Rumraket wrote:Additionally, the average public individual will have a hard time weighing the arguments presented in such a short time, and may come away from a debate with the wrong impression, despite the possible fact that the "losing" side was factually correct.

I would venture to suggest that what is needed is for defenders of reality to acquire the requisite eloquence. This will put paid to much of the duplicity of the ideological stormtroopers for doctrine.

Rumraket wrote:In my opinion there is nothing to be gained in these debates, and the creationists should be doing science instead of debating if they want to be taken seriously.

Indeed, this is one of the very points that defenders of reality should be making loudly. They should point at creationists and demand rigorous evidential support instead of duplicitous apologetics.

Rumraket wrote:Debating them means taking them seriously without them doing any science.

Not if the valid science is presented properly.

Rumraket wrote:In a debate all you have is two guys throwing words and paragraphs at each other, and it would be difficult for a scientist to properly convey the invested time, rigour and effort in doing actual laboratory and field research in support of scientific postulates...

I don't recall this being a problem for Carl Sagan. My view is that we need to start producing more Carl Sagans.

Rumraket wrote:No, no debates should be had.

I would venture that in the interests of exposing nonsense and duplicity, what should happen is that defenders of reality should take control of those 'debates'.

Indeed, below, I shall now address a post that embodies precisely my arguments. Let's take a look at this shall we?

Lion IRC wrote:I would like to see a debate in which the empirical evidence for "random" and "spontaneous" and "singularity" are presented.

Oh, so the fact that I have expended intellectual effort with respect to exposing the "random" canard erected by creationists, is something you're going to ignore and pretend never happened?

Plus, once again, how many times do you need to be told what scientists actually postulate, instead of the fatuous and duplicitous strawman caricatures erected by ideological stormtroopers for mythology? Namely, that scientists postulate that testable natural mechanisms are responsible for classes of observed phenomena of interest? Again, I spent considerable time dealing with this in another post. Did you bother to read that post at any time when I posted it over at RDF, or bother to read its replication here by another poster whilst I was otherwise engaged? Let's nail once and for all the duplicitous creationist lie that scientists think things "just happened", shall we?

With respect to the biosphere, scientists postulate testable mechanisms for the appearance of biodiversity. You've been schooled on this often enough to know this, and as a consequence, I consider your above erection of the same tired old canards to be yet another example of creationist duplicity.

As for the business of the appearance of life itself, once again, scientists postulate testable mechanisms for this. You do know what a chemical reaction is, don't you? Dozens of which are presented in detail in the requisite scientific papers, which I can wheel out at a moment's notice if you want to make the mistake of going down that route.

Lion IRC wrote:I wonder how many "clowns" would be humiliated then.

Well once the duplicitous canards were properly exposed as such, I would venture to suggest that the clowns in question would be even more humiliated before an audience that possessed even the most elementary level of scientific knowledge.

Lion IRC wrote:If the absence of evidence translates as evidence of absence then it should be a fairly balanced debate.

Speaking of which, where is the evidence for invisible magic men? I'm still waiting for supernaturalists to present this. They've had 5,000 years to deliver the goods. Science, on the other hand, has been delivering the goods by the supertanker load ever since it got off the ground.

Lion IRC wrote:In the meantime, refusal to debate your opponent is a really bad strategy for everyone except those who fear that they may end up looking like "clowns"

And I've just stated above that I don't subscribe to this view. I've just stated that I subscribe to the view that nonsense and duplicity should be tackled head on and dealt with using withering firepower. Which I'm doing now. I don't have any fear of looking like a "clown", because I know that reality supports my arguments, courtesy of two gigabytes of scientific papers on my hard drive. When supernaturalists can present something matching this to support their blind assertions and presuppositions, I'll sit up and take notice.

Lion IRC wrote:"Can't be bothered debating"?
"Dont want to give my opponents credibility"?
"There's nothing to debate"?
"I'm too highly educated to lower myself to their level"?
"I feel sorry for them so I won't debate them"?
"I know I would win anyway so it's a waste of time"?
"It's a private atheism convention - no theists allowed"?

Oh look, it's strawman caricature time once more.

First of all, as I have already explained above, one extant view is that giving creationists the oxygen of publicity risks giving the public the idea that their nonsense possesses merit, when it manifestly doesn't upon proper critical examination. The only reason creationism is considered to be anything other than a fatuous irrelevance is because of the political skulduggery and discoursive mendacity of its propagandists. What part of "if reality supported their ideas, those ideas would be mainstream science" do you not understand?

Doesn't the fact that professional propagandists for mythology have to lie for their doctrine tell you anything? And before you ask for an example, try my demolition of AiG's lies about 14C dating, on a web page that contained a scurrilous traducing of a Nobel Laureate just because his work happened not to genuflect before mythology-based blind assertion. Did you read that when I posted it over at RDF?

Rumraket wrote:Actually, after having read the article op linked, I have reversed my position in light of new evidence. Apparently I was underestimating the intelligence and curiosity of the average debate watcher. It seems there really IS a case to be made in front of an audience, and that people are (probably mostly as a consequence of the sheer idiocy of creationist claims) generally able to spot the difference between blind assertion and a properly supported scientific case.

Sometimes I enjoy being proven wrong.

And that's the difference between you and the professional liars for doctrine. You are honest.

Dogmatic Pyrrhonist wrote:In short yes. But beware of their tricks of the trade, and be aware of your own limitations.

Creationist debaters are typically trained in rhetoric, speeches and so on. They're essentially specialists at verbally convincing people. It's got nothing to do with science, and all to do with making it seem like they know what they're doing. To beat them, you need to be aware not only of how rhetoric works, and how it convinces people, but of the tricks, lies, and deceits they will use.

Which I've just addressed above with my remark about needing to produce more Carl Sagans. In particular, a new generation of Carl Sagans who are also aware of the duplicity of creationists, and have devised effective weapons for dealing with this.

Dogmatic Pyrrhonist wrote:Not everyone is a great debater. Scientists in general are not trained to debate. And public speaking isn't something that comes naturally either. To be able to debate effectively, and have access to the vast amount of science needed to refute the host of bullshit that will be throw your way is very very hard. People who can do that are few and far between. And they really probably do mostly have better things to be doing with their lives.

In which case, it's time we started producing our own specialists in this field. See above.

Dogmatic Pyrrhonist wrote:So, for a traditional debate, I'd be very cautious, unless you can arrange a team that nicely compliments itself and is exceptional in having oratory skills, good logic and a science background.

In short, develop the firepower needed to win. Which is precisely what I'm arguing here.

Dogmatic Pyrrhonist wrote:I for one suck at public speaking. But I've a reasonable science background and strong logic. So I'm sticking to these here internetty debates.

I'd say you do well enough. However, it won't hurt to take some tips on how to do it from people such as PZ Myers, who also happens to have a gift for this sort of thing.

Dogmatic Pyrrhonist wrote:Now, for all that I've just described why it's hard to do, I still think it's important. Because lies shouldn't go unchallenged. Because otherwise intelligent people can end up believing this crap.

My point precisely.

Alan C wrote:A big problem as far as I'm aware is creationists using the 'Gish gallop'.

But since this tactic is now known and documented, countermeasures can be devised.

Larkus wrote:

Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?

Some more articles on the topic:

Debates and the Globetrotters by Eugenie Scott

The November-December 2004 Issue of the Reports of the National Centre for Science Education (RNCSE 24 (6)) deals with the topic of debating creationists. There are several good articles about this topic in it:

Challenging Creationist Debaters by Edward E Max
Confronting Creationism: When and How by Eugenie C Scott
Debates: The Drive-By Shootings of Critical Thinking by Karen E Bartelt
Then A Miracle Occurs... by Michael Shermer
Winning the Creation Debate by Frank J Sonleitner

Lark

Thank you for providing useful material. In particular, I like the title of one of those expositions. Because what creationists do is succinctly described as "drive by shooting of critical thinking". Whoever owns the copyright to that phrase, send them to me to arrange a usage licence.

ElDiablo wrote:If honesty were a criteria for a debate the creationists would have to bow out every time. Their deceit is absolutely disgusting.

All the more reason to subject that deceit to the glare of the public spotlight, and expose it as such.

Arcanyn wrote:What I'd really love to see is a debate between a Christian creationist and someone holding a rival, but equally crazy viewpoint - eg a believer in David Icke's theory about shapeshifting alien reptiles, or a Hellenic creationist. It would be really interesting to see how they'd go against someone who uses the same dodgy tactics they do, with the same fallacious arguments, but for a completely different conclusion (but still equally ridiculous). Of course, they'd never agree to this, because it would completely expose how vapid some of their tactics are, especially if they were to come across a Scientologist who is better at it than they are, and is able to present a more convincing case for the idea that life came to Earth aboard DC-10s containing the galaxy's surplus population so that Xenu could herd them all around volcanoes before blowing them all up with hydrogen bombs, than the Creationist is able to manage for their viewpoint. Still, it's nice to imagine.

I like this idea. Perhaps we should arrange for this to happen. Muhahahaha ...

This also reminds me of the differences between science and the scientific community, and religions/churches. There are a shit-ton of various churches, faith-schools and institutions, with large campuses wherein right now an entire new generation of Bullshitters for theismtm are bing actively trained and educated for the specific purpose of convincing and swaying the public against science and towards mythology. I am reminded of the Arch parcel-tongue, William Lane Craig, who's entire existence seems to build around finding rethorical loopholes and factual vagueties/unknowns and alternate interpretations in empirical science, simply in order to construct logically sounding arguments with which to wedge mythology into the cracks. The institution he works for, and others like it is right now educating new lines of "company men" in cloning his and various ID-proponents approach.

What science needs is paid, eloquent, trained spokesmen and professional debaters, with titles and positions similar to Dawkins's previous "promotor of the public understanding of science", who's sole job it is to tackle the bullshitters head on. We need people with the wit, humor and eloquence of Christopher Hitchens(who also happens to be well trained in bringing out the worst in religion and making fun of the endless absurdities they display), in addition to a deep and thorough understanding of the requisite scientific(and their philosophical underpinnings) subjects under debate, whatever they may be.
This is not just important for the sake of refuting bullshit, but also for the cause of generally taking the time and effort to educate the general populace about what science actuall is, together with current scientific research and developments. This is in the scientists, the scientific community (and therefore ultimately society's) own interest because it is the populace who decides what careers they want to take, what party to vote for and therefore by extension what their tax money is used on in the end.

This is something I think science has not done well enough, atleast in my lifetime and where I have lived and grown up. If it weren't for the sheer luck of being born into a family where my grandfather on my father's side was the head of a local astronomer club and an amateur astronomer, I don't think I would have known about places like this today.

TheAznValedictorian wrote:I'm quite divided on the issue. On one hand,I agree with Richard Dawkins: debating those idiotic Creationists gives them some sort of an ill-deserved platform.

However, after reading the article below, I am now quite undecided.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolut ... g-them-now

What are your opinions on this though? Please, do read the article to understand where I am coming from.

To date I've yet to have a reasoned debate with a creationists. All they do is

1) Change the subject - They constantly try to change the subject and its almost impossible to bring the discussion back to the original point without them claiming victory on the grounds that YOU are trying to avoid the new subject.
2) Ignoring evidence - You can link peer-reviewed papers quoting the revelent points (Whilst keeping them in context) and they will just pretend its not there.
3) Cry bias - Apparantly scientists are all involved in a evil plot to maintain evolution as the dominant theory that explains life as we find it. Of course they refuse to accept that if this is the case then equally they must accept the bias of creationists.
4) Refuse to addresss your arguments - This is particually irritating as it usually happens when you dismantle one of their points and they don't want to give you any credit. Any attempts to raise this issue are studiously ignored.
5) Lie - Whenever it suits them they will lie and even when you trawl back through the discussion and show them the evidence that demonstrates they are lying they'll just ignore it.
6) Quote mine - Perhaps the easiest thing the detect as all you need to do is drop it in google and it'll either find the paper itself allowing you to put it in context or more commonly it finds the creationists websites they copy and pasted it from.
7) Citing sources - Quite simply the vast majority don't but given that most their arguements come from googling creationism its generally not difficult to find their source and present them to it.
8) Ad hominum - Insults are always a favoured tool of the creationist
9) A unacceptabel lack of knowledge regarding evolution and an unwillingness to educate themselves.

Thats only a few of the things they do and quite frankly I've lost patience with it all.

On the public platform, I think it's good for those sitting on the fence, or open to changing their minds. As far as private debates go, it depends on the person.

Dawkins' current stance on debating with them may do more harm than good. It may provoke some to think that he's just dodging them out of fear of being wrong.