Or we could try using this parody of the “Big Daddy?” Chick tract.
Cite?
Doh, that will teach me to read the WHOLE post before posting.
Well, Libertarian, people tend to get a little testy about having to respond to the same old arguments (which we regard as having been shot down in flames a looong time ago) over and over again. So sometimes we “rant” a little bit. I notice that defenders of the right to bear arms also tend to be a little snappish sometimes.
Allow me to rephrase my sarcastic reply to elfkin477:
In fact there is very, very good evidence that evolution has taken place, and that all existing forms of life on this planet, including humans, evolved from earlier, different forms, and that all existing forms are related to one another and therefore evolved from some common ancestor. This is very well supported, so well supported that it may be regarded as a “fact”. The alternate claim, that the different “kinds” of living things were all specially created, and especially that they were all specially created within the recent past (less than 10,000 years ago) has no evidence to support it, as a scientific or historical fact, at all. Furthermore, many of the details of the most Biblically literalist Young Earth Creationism (a global Flood, the Ark, the Tower of Babel, and so on, as real historical events) are utterly absurd.
The question of the Big Bang vs. some sort of theistic creation of the Universe isn’t really relevant here. From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, it doesn’t really matter how the Universe came about: the Big Bang, Steady State/Continuous Creation (“it’s just always been there”), God Said “Let There Be Light”, or the Egg of the Great Cosmic Bird Hatched in Its Nest. Whatever happened, it was billions of years before the Earth was formed. The question of abiogenesis, how life first arose, is more germane to the topic of evolutionary biology, and isn’t at all well understood (although see Ben’s RNA World Update thread). Nonetheless, here too, there is something of a disconnect: even if we’re forced to postulate that God (or aliens from outer space) planted the first bacterium on this planet, we can easily go from there to sequoia trees or starfish or humpback whales or human beings. Note that there is no doubt about that last point either; people evolved from non-human primates, which in turn split off from non-primate mammals, and so on.
Teaching all of these points about evolution belongs in biology classes just as firmly as the “atomic theory of matter” belongs in chemistry class.
In my book, referring them to a site that seems to argue that “faith” in the existence of a neutrino and faith in the existence of a Christian God are one and the same would be winning the battle but losing the war. The whole point is to have people understand that science is science and religion is religion. And, in science we have rigorous standards for falsifiability, the testing of hypotheses, etc. I agree that we should not denigrate their faith, but I do think we should be making it crystal clear that it is science that should be taught in the science classroom and that religion is faith, not science.
While I am all in favor of attempts to teach concepts like quantum physics and chaos to the layman, I have to say that it took a hell of a lot of cringing to get through those few paragraphs you quoted. You might want to look for better sources on the subject. Basically, that source confuses the issues raised by quantum theory and those raised by chaos theory (there is “quantum chaos” but there is also “classical chaos”) and the explanations of both of them are painfully intertwined and confused with a few more incorrect statements thrown in for good measure!
Okay, let me get this straight, an anti-religious person who believes that Jesus is God (and a libertarian on top of it all)?!? That must put you in a smaller minority than a Jewish African American lesbian transgendered Republican! 
Libertarian,
This is a bit of an aside, but upon looking at that “Entanglement” link, and considering it in the context of the Hugh Ross link and the link you provided to the Austrian economics school in another thread, I detect a very strong pattern here: You seem to be quite attracted to claims by people to have “proven” or shown things that most others in the scientific (or economic) community do not believe they have in fact proven or demonstrated.
If I might be so bold as to suggest that you may want to adopt a somewhat more skeptical attitude toward such people! Sure, one can cite a few cases in which correct theories took a while to gain widespread acceptance, but for each one there are probably thousands of other cases of theories that never gained widespread acceptance because, frankly, the theories were incorrect at best or totally nutty at worst. Please keep this in mind!
Trisk, you took the words right out of my mouth. Everyone is bashing me here. All I’m saying is quit acting like Rambo. You don’t have to attack peoples beliefs to defend your own. And one last time, I’m attacking the tactics of both sides.
And to whoever brought up about the earth going around the sun and us all believing that, try to equally weigh things, eh? Creationism and Evolution are in a field of their own. I think they should be ranked higher than believing the earth revolves around the sun. You’ve accredited Evolution with the same importance as a basic scientific fact. I think its more than that. The point I was trying to make about everyone being the same, is that it would be boring if everyone were an evolutionist, or vice versa. No room for debate or difference. That’s what makes us human, does it not?
Back to my initial point. All I said was that each side should respect each other, and quit the bashing.
See, I know you’re going to think I’m just being argumentative here, but evolution is a basic scientific fact. It’s right up there with the atomic theory of matter.
shagadelicmysteryman wrote:
Well, sometimes you do. If I believe that a balloon is red, and my friend believes the same balloon to be blue, there’s really no way to argue for my belief without arguing against his. These are not non-overlapping magisteria.
Why?
What do you mean by “rank higher”? Are more important? If so, then it’s even more important to get it right.
Agreed. Which is why it’s so necessary to prevent people who are anti-science from teaching nonsense in public schools and obstructing legitimate scientific inquiry.
What a bizarre world view you have. Do you like Holocaust-deniers, because they spice things up a little? Do Klansmen provide the variety of opinion you’re looking for?
Not all beliefs are equal. Some are false. Some are pernicious. Creationism, defined as the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old and all that other junk, is both. I can’t overemphasize that evolution is not a “belief.” It is a scientific theory backed by truckloads upon truckloads of evidence from dozens of different fields. It is not a matter of faith, like believing whether Jesus was the son of God or Muhammad has the seal of the prophets. It is not a matter of opinion, like whether the 1998 Yankees were better than the 1976 Reds. The age of the Earth and the origin of biodiversity on Earth are issues which can be (and have been) determined through scientific investigation, just as surely as we’ve determined Planck’s constant and Raoult’s law. Creationists are not just those with a different opinion, they have systematically and deliberately ignored centuries of scientific research. For that, I give them no respect and their beliefs no tolerance.
If evolutionist tactics strike you as harsh or arrogant, I advise you to take into account a quote from Stephen Jay Gould about creationists. I don’t have the exact quote with me, but basically it goes like this:
Evolutionists some times come off as arrogant. But imagine you’re a professor of Roman History, who’s spent your entire life studying the Roman Empire. And some small subset of people tell you that, despite all the evidence, the Roman Empire never even existed. Wouldn’t you be upset? Wouldn’t you be condescending and arrogant to people with such willful and astonishing ignorance?
“And you wonder why a mere 0.7% of Americans consider themselves to be agnostic/atheist… Good luck with your “arguments”, people.”
Where are you getting this from? Every survey I have ever seen is more like 7%.
Have someone read the thread to you and show you the cite.
This is the classic old debate, in which valid arguments and valid evidence are often cast to the wind in favour of opposing belief.
Libertarian is absolutely right when he says this. What he fails to elaborate on is that attacking evolution is THE primary technique employed by Creationists and taught in their circles. But Lib is correct: real scientists ought not to attack any faith. That’s because faith is a highly subjective belief and science is a highly objective discipline, and the two don’t mix well.
And there you have the problem. When science is used to augment faith, it is no longer science: it becomes a distorted, subjective, meaningless discipline. It is typically the scientifically ignorant and the fundamentalists who attempt to fit science into their belief, so (as I think Triskadecamus implied) the best way to deal with these people is the Socratic Method. If you are good enough to use this method, the ignorant and the fundamentalist ought to be convinced by the sound of their own voices contributing to the argument for evolution.
Unfortunately that is assuming the Creationists allow you to speak at all; in my experience you will find it hard to finish more than two sentences in a row when debating with them.
**
Of course, creationists like Ross never have a problem reconciling their faith with science. They just falsify and distort their faith and their science until the two agree!
This is more than a little disingenuous. Ross is an old-earth creationist, and he regularly debates young-earth creationists.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576831116/o/qid=990457268/sr=8-2/ref=aps_sr_b_1_2/107-5974157-6141344
“For two centuries, secular scholars have dismissed Genesis 1-11 as a fable. Who could believe its six-day creation story, its stories of people who live 900 years or more, or its account of Noah’s ark? In this clear, engaging volume, Ross walks his readers through Genesis 1-11, from the Creation to the dispersal of humanity at the Tower of Babel. He attempts to show how scientific advances of the past twenty years render these Genesis stories not only possible, but eminently reasonable.”
"Yes, Hugh Ross believes in divine creation. Yes, this physicist-astronomer believes in the Deluge. "
-Ben
Oh, no! He believes in divine creation? He believes that biblical metaphors can be reasonably interpreted? Why, the man hardly deserves to live.
I don’t expect you to agree with Dr. Ross, but to smear either his faith or his science credentials, listed at his site, is a most unfortunate tactic. The Inquisition-level tolerance displayed by faith-bashers is eventually going to so isolate science that politicians will feed the need to regulate the field, lest their constituency vote them out. With respect to bigotted scientists, fighting ignorance needs to begin at home.
As far as I can see it’s a two-step process.
Step 1) Establish the science
Step 2) Establish that the science does not contradict or invalidate the Bible.
Step 2) Is the tricky one, and I’m not at all convinced that it is step 2. If people believe that the Bible must be taken literally, then nothing you can say, or do, or show them, will have any impact. Creationism is not a theory, it’s a faith, and no scientific argument will ever alter someone’s faith. You might think you’re presenting facts which contradict a hypothesis. But no. You’re attacking a belief. To believe in evolution you have to believe that the Bible should not be taken literally. And that’s too much for some.
As far as I can see it’s a two-step process.
Step 1) Establish the science
Step 2) Establish that the science does not contradict or invalidate the Bible.
Step 2) Is the tricky one, and I’m not at all convinced that it is step 2. If people believe that the Bible must be taken literally, then nothing you can say, or do, or show them, will have any impact. Creationism is not a theory, it’s a faith, and no scientific argument will ever alter someone’s faith. You might think you’re presenting facts which contradict a hypothesis. But no. You’re attacking a belief. To believe in evolution you have to believe that the Bible should not be taken literally. And that’s too much for some.
Lib, I do wish you would stop misusing the word “bigoted” in these debates. Bigotry means unreasoning prejudice, something far more apt of creationists, not scientists. Scientists gather information, they come up with a preliminary explanation for the data, then they test that explanation. If the explanation holds up, then they have a working idea to explain their observations.
Creationists, on the other hand, are dogmatic, and completely oblivious to anything that contradicts a literal view of Genesis. They have no desire to investigate the claims of the Bible or of biology. Creationists do not test, they do not investigate, they do not study, yet they maintain that they are right and the mountains of evidence
that contradict their view of human origins are wrong. C’mon, who are the real bigots here?
And the irony of “The Inquisition-level (in)tolerance displayed by faith-bashers,” from a Christian, no less, is too rich for words.
Libertarian, to me the issue is not whether Dr. Ross believes in a Creator or creation event, but his obvious denial of some basic scientific facts. His personal views are irrelevant, unless he proposes teaching his version of a creation story in a science class. But it is misguided to reference his website in an attempt to sway towards rationality those involved in an Evolution vs. Creation debate, based upon my understanding of his views.
Let me give a few examples:
From the website you referenced
I take this to mean Ross does not subscribe to theories of evolution. As further evidence I offer this statement from his website
He also does not believe any speciation events have occurred since “Adam and Eve”, according to this passage from his book:
From his debate with Duane Gish, he explicitly states his denial of biological evolution
There is more, but I think this adequately demonstrates the point. While it is entirely possible to maintain one’s faith and still admit to the reality of evolution, I don’t feel that Dr. Ross is the model for someone to follow in doing so.
The Opening Poster asked what is the best way to fight creationist pseudoscience. I am trying to explain that there is a big difference between the perpetrators of the pseudoscience and the masses who fall prey to their deception. You cannot fight the pseudoscience by insulting the core beliefs of the masses. Not only should you, as a person interested in science, refrain from insulting their faith, you should not even care about their faith. Your attacks on their faith merely drive them away. Needlessly. What is it to you if they are able to reconcile the mundane facts of science with their interpretations of scripture? You… will… fail if your intention is to attack both the pseudoscience and the faith. Let me give you an(other) example of what I’m talking about…
Ineffective way
Newcomer: Hi. I’m a Christian, and I’ve been reading a website by a group called the Institute for Creation Research. I was wondering how evolutionists account for the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that evolution couldn’t have occurred.
Poster1: I guess you believe pi = 3, huh?
Poster2: The bible is so full of contradictions that I can’t even list them all here. See this atheist website.
Poster3: What a moron. You obviously don’t know anything about thermodynamics. See this link to a post-doctoral thesis on thermodynamics.
Poster4: Your little god is stupid. Why did he murder all those people in the old testament?
Poster5: The ICR is the most dangerous, filth infested organization on earth. You are too, having fallen under their spell.
Effective way
Newcomer: Hi. I’m a Christian, and I’ve been reading a website by a group called the Institute for Creation Research. I was wondering how evolutionists account for the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that evolution couldn’t have occurred.
Poster1: Welcome to the SDMB, Newcomer. Someone more qualified than I will come along shortly to address your point, but I just wanted to let you know that there are lots of people who share your faith and who accept the Theory of Evolution as factual. Some of them are right here on our board.
Poster2: You might not have known (I didn’t for quite some time!) but most Christians have no problem reconciling scientific theories, like evolution, with their interpretations of scripture. See this site, for example, about theistic evolution.
Poster3: Evolution is not in conflict with the second law because the second law applies to closed systems, like the universe for example, where there is no energy coming in from outside. But look at the earth. It isn’t closed at all. Plenty of energy is supplied to the earth from the sun! Can you think of ways that life on earth uses this energy from the sun?
Poster4: Many Christians here at Straight Dope have told me that God calls upon His believers to have a right understanding, to question, to seek truth. I wish you much success in your quest for answers. I don’t share your faith, but I’m not your enemy either.
Poster5: I challenge you to closely examine the credentials of the people at ICR and compare them to the credentials of people like Dr. Hugh Ross, an accomplished astronomer who is also a deeply devout Christian who strongly disagrees with the young earth people at ICR. I think he steps outside of science when he speculates about origins, or reconciles science with his personal belief systems, but then so do we all!
Would it be possible, just once, to discuss creationism without somebody whining shrilly that the evil evolutionist atheists are bigoted against the poor little creationists? DITWD did it quite reliably until he got kicked off, so it seems Libertarian now feels the need to pick up the slack.
**
This is simply a lie, Libertarian. As has already been pointed out, Ross is a creationist, and believes in the literal truth of many elements of creationist dogma, such as the existence of Adam and Eve and the impossibility of macroevolution. For you to portray him as a good role model of a scientist who fights creationism, and who merely interprets the Bible as being a metaphor for modern science, is simply dishonest.
**
Don’t put words in my mouth.
**
Oh, I see- if I criticise someone’s beliefs, that’s just a “smear.” Why, I hardly deserve to live! By that token, aren’t you “smearing” me far more when you engage in Inquisition-baiting?
**
I said nothing about his credentials, liar.
**
More false accusations. What is it with these nine-commandment “Christians”? I didn’t bash faith. I bashed dishonesty.
Your gross misuse of terms like “Inquisition-level tolerance”(sic?) and “bigotted”(sic) has already been explained to you, nine-commandment liar.
If you want to continue with your histrionics, I suggest you take it to the Pit. You’ve hijacked my thread long enough as is.
-Ben