Dr. J, don’t attack a friend. I agree with the disclaimer in text books and everything else. Also note that not only did i refer to God, but also faith, which in turn would also cover “Scientific Creationism”. Well, I’m not going to write this over again. Look at my most recent post before this one.
I’m not attacking either side as a whole, but I’m attacking the methods. Its getting quite hostile.
As I said, the 7.5% “nonreligious” cohort of the population no doubt includes people who believe as you do. (I would respectfully disagree that someone who has a deep belief in God is “non-religious”, but that would be another thread.) Still, it also surely includes a bunch of Atheists Who Dare Not Speak the Name as well, which means that your “0.7%” number is lowballing it.
An atheist who argues against your belief in God isn’t making a scientific point; he’s making a philosophical or theological point (albeit one which may be informed by scientific findings). Such a point of view should certainly not be promoted by the public schools or any other agency of the government. On the other hand, teaching scientific facts in a science class is acceptable and proper. (And an atheist whose debating tactics boil down to saying “People who believe in God are stupid” is a poor debater, at the very least.)
By the way, Libertarian, the main web site I’ve seen creationists referred to around these parts is the Talk.Origins Archive, which is not an atheist web site. Your point is well taken, as far as it goes, and I’m not saying attacks on creationism never turn into general religion-bashing exercises, but there are plenty of opponents of creationism–including atheists–who can keep the issues properly separated.
“Defending ones principles and beliefs” necessarily involves criticizing opposing beliefs.
Well, give us an example of a defender of evolution improperly attacking religion or faith in general, and we’ll join in and condemn it to the degree it deserves. Note that in this thread it was the believer (albeit not an anti-evolutionary creationist) who dragged religion in to the argument.
smm: *Imagine how crappy this world would be if everyone thought the same way. So why you trying to make that happen? *
Does it make the world any “crappier” for damn near everybody in our society to think that the earth orbits the sun instead of vice versa? Or that lunar and solar eclipses are mathematically predictable events involving blocking of the sun’s light by the body of the earth or the moon respectively, instead of supernatural portents of disaster? We all “think the same way” about these things now because the facts clearly support the way we think.
Nobody on the anti-pseudoscience side (or at least, nobody posting about it here) is trying to make everybody “think the same way” about religious beliefs and dogma. All we’re saying is that well-grounded scientific theories (which, btw, do not have the status of Absolute Ultimate Truth and need not be defended as such) should not be misrepresented, nor undermined on the basis of irrelevant claims about freedom of opinion. Freedom of opinion is not an adequate justification for suppression or distortion of facts, which is what creationist pseudoscience attempts to do. “Scientific Creationism” is not just a matter of faith (although I grant that most people who believe its claims probably do so sincerely, in ignorance of the deceptions involved in it). It is a matter of lies. Hostility toward lies is not the same thing as attacks on other people’s religious beliefs.
DoctorJ:
Despite whatever lines you (an editorial you) might draw, Doctor, you will fail in your fight against ignorance if you continue to act like science is the art of inquisition. Stop fighting the Creationists by attacking their interpretations of the Bible, and start fighting them by attacking their interpretations of scientific data. If I see one more derisive Genesis quote or reference to pi equalling three from someone arguing against Creationists, I’m going to puke. Leave people to interpret scripture for themselves.
Why not take this approach? “Well, Mr. Newcomer, the bible stories might well be true. I’m not qualified to say, but here is evidence about evolution that many good people of faith who are also scientists accept, for example…”
MEBuckner:
I appreciate your points with respect to debating tactics, and I agree with you.
As to the tangential point, look further into the NSRI study and you will see that it was carefully constructed to avoid precisely the kinds of obfuscations you speculate about. Respondents were shielded as much as is humanly possible from answering by prejudice.
Incidentally, Libertarian, I think this started to go to hell in a handbasket with this post:
Pointing out that bashing belief in God in the middle of a scientific discussion is a bad idea is all well and good. But with this, you implicitly dragged in the idea that this debate somehow has something to do with a desire to increase the number of Americans who are atheists. Note that while some of us in this thread are in fact atheists, none of us showed any desire to drag this into a debate about the existence of God before then.
Well, I haven’t seen the study questions, but I would be somewhat surprised if only 0.7% of the American population lacked a belief in God. According to Gallup, belief in God among Americans is “consistently in the mid-90% range”, but it’s not “consistently in the mid-99.0% range”.
If you are asking about debate technique, that is, how to win an argument with a creation science proponent, then you have to keep your audience in mind. Debates usually include an audience. If you are debating before a primarily skeptical group, with a good educational level, you got it made. Hammer the facts. Expose the illogical evidence. Show the broad number of different types of supporting evidence.
If you are debating before an audience of fundamentalist biblical literalists, who feel that evolution is a desecration of the holy writ, you have a far different argument ahead of you. Ask questions. It is the only avenue you really have to reach people. Ask why the evidence seems to support a lie. Ask what reason they have to abandon the rest of their faith to argue about trivia. You won’t change their opinion about evolution. You might change their opinion about people who believe in evolution. You might convince them that science is not about disproving the existence of God, but exploring the mysteries of His Universe. Respect their right to believe as they choose. Then make clear that you expect the same respect.
If you are debating before a school board, hammer the Constitution. Bring in the criteria that major corporations consider important in the education of a prospective employee. Discuss the implication of theological review of education in a democracy. Ask why the faith of anti-evolutionists is in need of protection by use of censorship. If you feel that your children will be misinformed by the school system, take responsibility for them, first. Teach the truth to your own kids. In the extreme case, it might be better for them if you move to a better school district. Never allow your own attachment to the rightness of your opinion justify making life decision that harm your kids, or your neighbors.
Or yourself.
Tris
*Originally posted by Ben *
What’s the best way to fight creation “science”? …
One good step is to join CSICOP and receive a subscription to the Skeptical Inquirer see http://www.csicop.org/
**Along the same lines, is “Inherit the Wind” realistic? Would the creationist Brady really have been made a laughingstock by Drummond’s arguments, or would his creationist audience have stuck by him in real life? How much can creationism be defeated by satire and the deflating power of a horselaugh?
-Ben **
As Ben probably knows, ITW is a fictionalized version of the Scopes case. Although ITW is a great play, I personlly doubt its realism.
I must say it seems incredible that so many people still deny a biological basis for thee evolution of life, given the enormous advances we are seeing in genetics.
I have always found it useful to stick to the debate technique used by Frank Zinder against Duane Gish.
Basically, he moved the debate from “What is wrong with evolution?” (which Gish and the other creationists are very good at debating) to “What testable scientific theory does creationism advance?” Duane Gish basically fell flat on his face.
There is a fundamental difference between evolution science and creation science. Evolution is based around a sound scientific theory – it explains all the data out there and has predictive value. Some parts are less understood than others, but evolution won’t just go away because of one piece of damning evidence. For instance, rapid changes in the fossil record didn’t lead to the tossing out of evolution, it led to the introduction of punctuated equilibrium.
Creation science, on the other hand, has two purposes: to find evidence against evolution and to find evidence of biblical literalism. I define science as the process of testing hypotheses (by observation of evidence) in order to explain our surroundings. Since creation science does not advance hypotheses or have predictive value, it fails the test for being a science, and does not belong in a science class.
I think either both creationism and evolution should be taught in school, or preferably neither.
Why? Neither theory is very well supported. Oh sure, you can show a million theories for either, but when it’s all boiled down, no one knows why either could of occured. One person said God created the world. Where did God come from? Another person says that it was the Big Bang. Where did the orginal matter that started the whole thing come from? No one can give a conclusive answer to either. To me, one is theory isn’t more valid than the other because of this flaw is present in both theories.
And this, my dear fellow Dopers, is why those of us who do fight against the ignorance of Creation Science followers do so. When the misattribution of the word “science” to the Creationist belief is broadcast as it is by the ICS and others of that ilk, it leads otherwise sane and normal people to do the above: equating science with religious belief.
Biology, including evolution, is science. Evolution is falsifiable: truly modern species/subspecies/breeds should not appear in fossil strata laid down before their development; if someone tomorrow found the fossilized bones of a pekingese in Pre-Cambrian strata, evolution as we know it (and biology as we know it, actually) would need to be re-evaluated and possibly discarded. Evolution is predictive, even retroactively: the theory as it stands suggests that we’d find a radiating series of related species in the fossil strata, and we do.
Creation “Science” is not science. It’s major evidence is not evidence for Creationism, it’s evidence that the Creationists interpret as being against evolution. Which begs the question of “why are there only these two explanations of the history of life, then?” It’s not falsifiable: you can say “Goddidit” until the cows come home, for ever possible bump in your road, and there’s no way to refute it, because yeah, he could have. But that’s not science. It’s not predictive: Creation is over, according to most of Creationism’s proponents. It was a one-of-a-kind event and we’ll never see its like again.
Science is a word that means a specific thing. Creation “science” is not that thing. This is why we object to and fight against it being taught in public schools as science. Not because we think your God is a fable (there are a lot (probably a majority, actually) of Christians who don’t believe Genesis is literal, so you can’t say it’s an atheist plot), but because we think your interpretation of the evidence that’s been found is faulty, shoddy, and predetermined by your sacred book.
jayjay (currently examining Christianity himself)
Speaking of that “sacred book”, as a Christian arguing against Creationists, I often remind them that we don’t worship a book and that God cannot be contained in one.
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” — John 21:25
Keep that argument in mind, JayJay, in case you ever have occasion to use it! 
I was not saying that the universe was “unpredictable” as much as I was saying that it couldn’t really be a “closed system”. Like you said, there’re isolated particles that often develop a case of “randomness”, and can add up to a lot over the course of several billion years. Also, keep in mind that most “prediction” laws work on a macro (or, rather, non-quantum) scale, and haven’t been tested in the billion-year range.
Apologies for the ambiguity… I was aiming more towards humor than accuracy with my post.
I’ve found that the most insidious argument Creationists have is the one that states God created a 4½ billion-year-old world 6,400 years ago, since it doesn’t require any serious attempt to undermine evolution. In fact, there’s really no way to disprove it, if you accept an omnipotent God and the notion that Adam and Eve did have navels. On the other hand, that theory acknowledges that evolution is valid and predictive and, in fact, the only way to understand the natural world. For example, if you wanted to look for oil (I used to live in Oklahoma, and where this argument was particularly effective) you have to act as if there really was an earth populated with animals a million years ago. If you want to believe that the oil is there because God put it there, just where it would be if the earth really was that old and evolution really did occur, well, that’s a matter of faith, and science is not capable of resolving the question.
Elfkin’s post illustrates a good point- why do you assume that all or even most of those who are ignorant about biology are creationists? All of those campaigns for textbook disclaimers and such wouldn’t be successful without a general population ignorant of the facts.
Of course it’s no use to try to reason with a genuine creationist who does not make an effort to actually listen to reason, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t educate the general populace, many of whom are “fence sitters” like the above poster.
Well, the refutation of a complete, full-fledged Omphalos Argument would be more of a task for philosophy than science–all scientists could do under those circumstances would be to shrug their shoulders and say “Well, I guess we’re just trying to fill in the details of God’s Big Lie” (or “God’s Big Story”, if you want to be more charitable about it). However, while Young Earth “Scientific” Creationism partakes of “Omphalos”-style arguments to some extent, it is falsifiable to the extent that it claims that things like the Noachian flood are historical events, for which there is historical evidence, or that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and (again), there is evidence for this. And it has, of course, been falsified. YE"S"C is nonetheless non-falsifiable in an emotional sense, in that it is held to by its adherents as a matter of religious belief, and convincing them that it’s not true requires something more than just pointing out where the facts don’t support their hypotheses.
This again comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the words “theory” and “science.” It also, in a typical ploy, confuses the basic tenets of cosmology and lumps them together with evolution.
Just because a theory lacks conclusive answers doesn’t mean it shouldn’t get taught. That is the nature of most science. Gravity, as a theory, goes largely unsupported at a quantum level. When it’s all boiled down, no one knows why gravity occurs. I got news for you, though : there is far more evidence for the mechanism of evolution than for the mechanism of gravity. Does this mean that gravity should not be taught in school?
[rant]
There are few (if any) scientific theories which can be explained at a level required by the anti-evolution folks. Unsupported data and healthy debate is the hallmark of true science, and resolution of unknowns are the lifeblood of scientific progress. Does this mean we shouldn’t teach science because it poisons young folks minds with unknowns and questions? Because it encourages free thought? Maybe we should just teach them the Bible and the harmony of the spheres Aristotle cosmology. Maybe we should outlaw the quest for more knowledge in the world, because it may contradict 3000 year old superstitions.
[/rant]
Actually, I’m not a fence-sitter, I just approach the argument using the internal logic of creationists. The “old earth” theory of creationism actually acknowledges evolution as a valid, predictive theory. Therefore, it should be taught in public schools. The religious overlay, that God could and did create a 4½ billion-year-old world, is a matter of faith and should be taught in the home or from the pulpit.
Similarly, the “guided” evolution principal, which basically accepts everything in evolution but insists that it must have been “guided” by the hand of God (since “an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters will not produce ** Hamlet **,” as Wlliam F Buckley put it). Again, this is creationism acknowledging evolution as the best theory available, while adding a religious overlay to it.
I think either both “Geoge Washington was the first President of the United States” and “Imhotep, the ancient Chinese Jaguar God, was the first President of the United States” should be taught in school, or preferably neither.
Why? Neither theory is very well supported. Oh sure, you can show a million arguments for either, but when it’s all boiled down, no one knows who was the first President of the United States. Everyone who was alive back then died a long time ago. One person says God created the world. Where did God come from? Another person says that it was the Big Bang. Where did the orginal matter that started the whole thing come from? No one can give a conclusive answer to either. To me, one theory about who was the first POTUS isn’t any more valid than the other because of this flaw which is present in both theories.
Okay, there it is. A lesson on how to win a battle and lose the war. Expecting a sympathetic ear from a person of faith, while deriding his most intimate personal beliefs as 3000-year-old superstitions, is either ignorant or naive. There is not one whit of science to be found in the quoted statements.
Just give the facts. Let the listener himself determine whether there is the implication of design. That’s all that an honest scientist can do.