Proving people wrong

I was recently checking through the archive of old debates, trying to single out all the evolution ones (well it was either that or actual work :slight_smile: ) and after reading through a few I came to the realisation that even in spite of the myriad evidence which was placed before the creationists not one of them accepted the flaws in their theory. They were just far more concerned with getting one up on some Godless heathens. It seemed to me that their theory was so important to them that it was impossible for them to let go of it.

Now, I’m not saying that ignorance is never fought in this forum. I myself have been forced, through various debates, to entirely throw out my preconceived ideals on a subject and examine it from a different standpoint. In a couple of incidences (Gun control and political manipulation of the press spring to mind) I have come down on, if anything, the opposite side than the one I started on.

However, it seems to me that some people are just so set in their ways and obstinate that it is impossible to prove them wrong. So why do we try? Why are creation debates always 6 pages long? Is there any chance of making a creationist or even a flat earther change their point of view? I personally don’t see it happening.

It’s not the people you are arguing with, Voice, it is the silent hoardes looking on.

pan

This difficulty results from our stubborn resistance in our ‘modern’ society to keep clear the difference between that which can be reasoned and that which is believed. The main religion for most of the country has for an exceedingly long time held as a belief the notion of the creation of Man by God in a specific way. As we have literally dug up evidence which would lead a rational person to propose a different concept of the beginnings of the universe and the development of mankind, the belief of Christians has come under attack. In the process, our society makes two fundamental errors. First, it fails to understand that belief cannot be attacked by use of rational thought; second, it accepts and believes the concept that man evolved over time from ‘lower’ orders of animals. In the process, those who believe in a different concept feel forced to provide a rational approach to their own belief.

There is no way to establish how mankind came to be. We can raise numerous suppositions, and presumably it would be ideal if the suppositions were compatable with the evidence we have discovered. But, having failed to adequately record just how mankind developed through eyewitness accounts or other evidence difficult to controvert, we must either refuse to reach a conclusion, or we must accept a conclusion on faith. Many in the scientific community, as well as in society in general, have faith that the evidence of past human ancestors, as well as of other biological and geological history, is not misleading. Such people go from being neutral on the conclusion to believing in the evolution of mankind. Unfortunately, they don’t understand that this is just as much a ‘belief’ as is the ‘belief’ that Man was created by God; they think of it as the ultimate result of scientific approach, the rational acceptance of what evidence the senses have provided. The result is an approach that teaches the concept of the evolutionary development of mankind as if it were fact, not theory.

In response, those who continue to believe a different concept find themselves compelled to provide some sort of competing ‘scientific proof’ of their conclusions. This is not strictly analogous to the ‘flat-earth’ arguments, because those arguments were based at least in part on poor understanding of evidence provided by the senses as much as on philosophical viewpoints incompatible with the notion of a spherical world. But one cannot help but think of the concept of epicycles used to try and explain the observed motion of the planets within the overall concept of an earth-centered universe when one listens to the explanations of ‘creation science’.

Of course, based as it is on belief, rather than rational deduction, creationism becomes difficult to disprove through rational discourse. It does no good to try and show how the concept is incompatible with the evidence because the underlying concept remains a belief in a religious text, rather than acceptance of what the eyes appear to tell us. Whenever the evidence fails to support the ‘theory’, the evidence is ignored as suspect, or the argument is ignored as meaningless. This will always be the case when the first thought in creating a rational structure of theory is, “How do we disprove a competing theory?”

The tragedy in this difficulty is that it shows the corruption of both sides of the ‘issue’. A Christian who wishes to accept on faith that Man was created by God as told in the Bible shouldn’t need to support that with a rational examination of evidence; such a need is the antithesis of the concept of faith. Conversely, those who cherish the concept of rational thought, and who feel that an examination of evidence and the use of deductive reasoning will provide the best result shouldn’t feel compelled to accept the results of such reasoning as belief. It should be enough to say, “Well, it looks as if mankind came about through evolution; if we didn’t, God had an awful lot of fun creating bones and such for us to find!” :slight_smile: By engaging in a ‘debate’ over the issue, both ‘sides’ fail to live up to their own basic underlying beliefs as to how to treat life and living.

I can give a few of the reasons why I still bother with creationists.

  1. As kabbes said, there are non-participants who are still reading the debate. Joe Knucklehead posts a bunch of young-earth “proofs.” The evilutionists just roll their eyes and say, “Not this crap again! Go away, we’re not going to bother to refute this, because we know we’ll never convince you.” That says to Joe Knucklehead, and anyone else who looks at the thread, that the evilutionists really aren’t so smart. They know that they can’t combat the Creationist’s common-sense arguments which any child can tell are obviously true, so they’re slinking off with their tails between their legs. Or, it says that the evilutionists really are part of a scientific priesthood, and they can’t be troubled to explain their so-called evidence to the masses.

  2. You say that the creationists just want to get one up on the godless heathens . . . well, us godless heathens (and, to an equal extent, scientifically-minded non-biblical-literalists) want to get one up on the god-soaked fundies. And it’s so easy! Fifteen minutes at the talk.origins FAQs will usually refute any given creationist argument. Like shootin’ fish in a barrel.

  3. Arguing with people who disagree with you is a good way to test your own beliefs. I’m not saying that ever in a million years a fundie’s going to come up with an argument that rocks my belief in evolution to the core, but they are going to ask questions that make me go out and do research and understand the theory that I’m defending, and that is good and healthy. In good debates (which, admittedly, are few and far between), they’re going to force me to understand what the limits of evolutionary theory are, what’s well-established and what’s on shaky ground.

Also, the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else. Just by trying to explain radioisotope dating to some rock-head, and answering his questions, I’m testing and solidifying my own knowledge of the subject. All the better if I can actually educate the guy, but even if he never gets it, I’ve gained something in trying to rephrase and make analogies.

  1. It’s often interesting to read posts by other evolutionists, many of whom are experts. It increases my general knowledge, and gives me ammo for the next debate.

  2. I love a good rip-snortin’, hair-pullin’, rollin’ around in the mud intellectual argument. Gets the juices goin’, you know? The trick is knowing when to step back and let your blood pressure return to normal.

DSYoungEsq.

Well said.

I learned–here, actually–a while ago that my biggest mistake in the aforementioned debate was attempting to ‘fight’ science with faith in debate. One poster said something to the effect of 'If one can admit their belief in Creation is a matter of their faith, I’ll respect that–but if one tries to tell me Creation is a matter of science, he’d better back it up scientifically–and he’d better be ready to get a lot of opposition.

Truth be told, science does not support faith.

One cannot pit faith against science and expect an easy victory–if he can expect a victory at all. Paul summed up faith ‘sure of what we hope for, certain of what we do not see.’

Science, on the other hand, might mean ‘sure of what we observe, certain of what we have learned from said observation.’

YMMV.

As fantastickal as the Creationist’s view may seem, he takes it on in faith. It is unseen, and cannot be expected to easily fit into the confines, as it were, of rationale. The Creationist, quite simply, has no business entering scientific debate if the Bible is his only source of support. He will be laughed at. I am not saying he needs to simply give up stating his beliefs–but he cannot expect science to bow to ‘A book of stories.’

By the same token, science cannot simply disprove the theory of Intelligent Design–and many adherents to science treat the proponents of Creationism as though evolution is absolute fact. It is not–it is as close to fact as human rationale can conceive based upon the observable universe, and matters of God exist outside this sphere. For the evolutionist to expect the Christian to throw out their belief in Intelligent Design based upon a theory which, even if it were 99.999 ad infinitum % possible, still cannot answer the question of origin in any absolute manner–is also like telling a bee to stop flying because it isn’t supposed to based upon the evidence against it.

I don’t get involved in the C v E debates because no one can prove anything. Both sides claim their paradigm is accurate–one based upon the visible world, the other based on the invisible.

It’s easy to understand why Paul also wrote ‘We are fools for Christ.’

It’s utter madness to eschew the obvious temporal for the seemingly visceral.

More specific–no one can prove anything when it comes down to the root of the debate itself–it turns into speculation on science’s part, and still relies upon the numinous on behalf of Intelligent Design.

There’s a possibility that existence was entirely random.

And there’s a possibility is was volitional.

And that’s what I mean by ‘no one can prove anything.’

Voice said:

I agree with much of what’s been said already – the main point being that there are others reading all these discussions, and we cannot simply let the creationist claims go unchallenged.

I think too many scientists tend to ignore creationists and other pseudoscientists as being beneath their contempt. Unfortunately, if they stay in their ivory towers, they will one day come down to find this crap being taught in schools. Sure, creationists may not be able to argue scientifically, but they don’t have to. They just have to get the politicians and the populace on their side.

However, you are incorrect in saying it is impossible to prove them wrong. We have proven them wrong. The fact that they won’t accept it doesn’t change this.

Both theories have flaws, they are just stepping stones to the truth.

Its probably a little bit of both - perhaps god uses the mechanism of ‘evolution’ to do some of the work for him.

Newton believed god only intervened now and then in the physical laws of the universe, as do the catholic churches science panel when reviewing miracles.

I agree with TheVoiceofReason that it is pointless to debate over and again the same crap raised by creationists who will never change their mind. I also agree with Kabbes that it is perhaps still worth making a response, not for the sake of the creationist in question, but for the sake of the undecided watching millions who may otherwise believe that evolutionary theorists have no answer. I suggest a model answer to creationist posts as follows:

"Those who believe that the available evidence supports the theory of evolution get very tired of responding to the same old factoids, half-baked rationalizations and outright nonsense put up time and again by creationists in posts such as yours. Rather than respond for your special benefit to the particular points made by you, I have two suggestions.

Firstly, question your own feelings. Do you actually have an open mind regarding facts and rational explanations that seem to support the theory of evolution? Perhaps in fact you dismiss any such facts or explanations automatically because they contradict your belief in the literal truth of the bible. Are you prepared to apply rational and evidence based thinking to your belief that the origin of life was miraculous creation? If not, there would seem no reason for you to attempt rational debate on this topic. Perhaps you should accept that your religious belief is just that, and that rational explanations of the origin of life are simply not relevant to your world view.

Secondly, if you can honestly answer the above questions in the positive, then have you read and studied widely on the topic of evolutionary theory and evidence? Or are the sources of your facts and refutations limited to theologians, creationists and other religious people and institutions? Before putting forward facts and refutations of evolutionary theory to this board or elsewhere, try reading up on them at a newsgroup such as the talk.origins FAQ’s or numerous other sources to see if they are matters that have been dealt with comprehensively elsewhere.

If after doing so there are still aspects of evolutionary theory that you find irrational, or facts (for which you can provide convincing citations) that seem to contradict that theory, then by all means post a query. You will find that most dopers will be all too willing to respond helpfully and in fact will love the opportunity to consider a novel and genuine attack on evolution.

If you post the same old shit that’s been debunked a thousand times before, all you do is strengthen dopers’ opinion that an empty barrel makes the loudest drum."

How’s that? Any improvements? I’m going to polish this up, then post it as a stock answer to every creationist fundie post.

taking it out of the realm of “creationist/scientist”.

When I ‘debate’ with my SO (we agree on many/most topics), it’s more of a ‘yea!’, maybe one or the other of us plays the Devils Advocate, but it’s not the same.

When I debate here, I’m faced with some one who sincerely believes stuff contrary to me. It hones my skill, my arguments, my ability to present my ideas and support them.

It’s pretty easy to tell the folks who hone their positions while chugging a pitcher at the local pub (they’re the ones who aren’t answering the point you make, but the point they know how to answer).