Is that really true? I mean, the popular perception from my demographic in my part of the world is that most Americans are whacky believers in a creationist philosophy, but my brain tries to tell me that just cannot be true.
How can a country that has apparently led the world in intellectual and scientific advances for the last 100 years turn it’s back on the gift of curiosity and knowledge. so vehemently?
Or, in other words, a reputable cite please. 
What Dio said.
Wow.
I was hoping to read that the actual polling questions were ambiguous enough to explain the depressing result, but they were damned straightforward wot.
Wow. That’s really sad.
This museum is in approximately my neck of the woods. I keep thinking that a trip here might just be the Best Dopefest Ever. Take a moment to picture it…
If only I didn’t have such mixed feelings about the ethics of giving them any money.
But we could make up for it by just being ourselves, walking through the place discussing what we see, and laughing if something strikes us as funny.
Given that the US is 80% self-identified as Christian (15% are areligious), and that 51% of responders are creationists, it does certainly imply that the large majority of US Christians are creationists.
Thus, it’s hardly surprising that they’d want their own museum devoted to their version of reality.
You could do that, but it would only perpetuate the image that Creationists create for their fanbase — of evolutionists being effetist snobs whose recklessness with science is exceeded only by their recklessness with people’s faith and feelings. Ridicule and disrespect is not the way to go with the ordinary people. After all, you’re saying that it’s a religion, not a science; therefore, it follows that you’re attacking their faith, not their science. If you go make fun of it, you will accomplish nothing more than further motivating them to even greater activism in order to counter what they will perceive as a threat to their religious freedom. The Creationist leaders know this, and is one reason they encourage confrontation.
A cynical explanation is that there have been no threats of any consequence, and the museum promoters are making a fuss for publicity purposes. The pseudo-danger aspect might also attract more of the We’ll Risk Anything For Our Faith crowd.
So, if we can’t defeat them with facts and the best empirical evidence we have, and we then can’t use ridicule and disrespect, what do you suggest we use to stop this scourge of Creationism?
P.S. What does effetist mean? I can’t find the dictionary definition for it.
So? It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
I don’t know where your first premise comes from. Defeating them with facts and the best empirical evidence is exactly what you should do and exactly what science is best at doing.
Recall that the suggestion was to go through the museum laughing. I was addressing that and that only, not the part you added. As I said, you can’t have it both ways: if it’s a religion not a science, and you laugh at it, you’re laughing at the religion not the science. Do that at your own political peril.
The first premise was based on the last 30 or so conversations I have with creationists. It was a defeatist premise meant halfway between tongue-in-cheek and despair. Your idea that laughing at the museum will further galvanize the ordinary folks to the Creationist side forgets that simply having agnostics, atheists and god forbid liberal Christians visit the museum will be galvanizing enough. Better to laugh and let them feel a deepening persecution complex than think their message is winning. That they are reaching the unfaithful.
I think it’s a great combination of effete and elitist – Liberal coined a new word.
These people aren’t interested in empirical evidence. They are interested in facts. It’s very difficult to get people like this to change their mind. Attempting to tell them that they are wrong isn’t going to get you anywhere.
If this place is close enough to me, this is exectly what I plan to do. If it isn’t expensive, I’ll prolly try and get a bunch of my friends into it too. It’s one thing if a single person is laughing out loud. It’s another if a whole group is doing it. If they throw us out, they’ll just be showing how intolerant they really are. If it really is a museum and they’re trying to impart knowledge, then they won’t care. But that’s not my bet.
Excuse my nitpicking, please…but isn’t 51% of 80% of the population 40.8%? Wouldn’t that properly be a plurality and not a majority, let alone a “large majority”?
Sailboat
I would like to state, for the record, that my thread wasn’t just about this museum but about the infinitely more important topic of dark chocolate M&Ms.
I’ve had a lot of success in debating and convincing Creationists. Maybe it’s because I’m Christian and can empathize better, but I honestly think that it’s in large measure some of my techniques, which I developed after reading an article by Eugenie Scott (evolutionist biologist) back in '94. I posted it in GQ once, but here it is for your convenience. I hope it helps:
[ul][li] **1. First and foremost: Respect your opponent. ** You will not, repeat, will not win a debate by hurling insults at the ICR scientists. Acknowledge their credentials. This establishes that you take the argument seriously. They are mistaken, not uneducated. Nothing makes a debator look sillier than pretending that his opponent’s argument lacks any validity whatsoever. You leave your audience with the impression that you didn’t understand some of the creationist’s points. (Remember that even lurkers here are an audience.)[/li]
[li] 2. Don’t dodge the questions. Yes, you do have to explain how human beings can arise from hydrogen. The audience understands that there has been a continuum of sequence from the Big Bang to the present day. You can’t just act like you’re exempt from dealing with the bigger picture just because natural selection deals only with biology. Show the flaws in the probability statistics offered by creationists. Explain how “remarkable” it is that a poker player is dealt a 3S-5H-7C-JS-KD hand.[/li]
[li] 3. Don’t misrepresent your opponent’s position. The more you do this, the worse it gets. And it is the very thing you’re accusing them of doing. See how silly this looks to the audience? You leave them scratching their heads and going, “Gish didn’t sound vague or fanatical to me.” Their positions are a matter of public record. You’ve lost when they can replay the tape and show that they did not, in fact, define macroevolution the way you say they did.[/li]
[li] 4. Don’t get lost in the details. You aren’t teaching for a pop quiz. What you see as vagueness in the creationists is what you need to master. Generalize. Don’t make your audience’s eyes glaze over with post doctoral scientific jargon. Don’t spend precious time citing the particulars of twenty-seven speciation observations. Just say, “There have been more than two dozen documented observations of speciation which are detailed in the hand-outs I’ve provided to you and to Dr. Gish.” Then sit back and let Gish spend the next half-hour rebutting each of them.[/li]
[li] 5. Don’t act like you have a grudge. Be folksy. Gish is a master of this. Don’t seem desperate. Keep your cool and select your battles wisely. If you don’t do this, you end up looking like you are trying to settle a score. Don’t use sarcasm. Don’t glare at your opponent, physically or verbally. Don’t let the audience think that your blood pressure is high, or else you’ll end up looking like a soaked-face Nixon debating against a cool and suave Kennedy.[/li]
[li] 6. Respect your audience’s faith. Remember that your target audience is Christian. If it comes to a choice between their God and your science, they couldn’t give a rat’s ass about your science. This is utterly unnecessary, and guarantees you an opposing voting block in perpetuity. And be careful how you word this. Don’t say, “Evolution has nothing to do with God.” Say, “Many scientists find that evolution is compatible with their faith.” Do you see the difference? The first one sounds like Madalyn Murray O’Hair on steroids; the second one sounds deferential and respectful.[/li]
[li] 7. Don’t pile on. Give your audience credit to know when you’ve won a debating point. It is tempting, once you’ve caught Gish in a trap, to go in with guns blazing. DON’T DO THIS. You look like you’re kicking a man when he’s down. Instead, give him a gracious out and then let him deal with it. Say, “Dr. Gish, I’m sure you didn’t mean to say so-and-so. Given this study I’ve cited, could you clarify your point?” This makes Gish look fallible and you look gracious and merciful. Your audience will make the connection that you have taken on the attributes of Jesus, Whom they adore. Gish, having taken on the role of fallible mankind MUST now humble himself before you of his own accord, else the audience will connect him with an unrepentant Pharisee. (See how this stuff works?)[/li]
[li] 8. Don’t act holier than thou. This is closely related to number 1, but differs in that, even though you acknowledge your opponent is not an idiot, you act like you yourself can do no wrong. You can’t win every point. Sooner or later, Gish is going to catch you unaware, or make a point that is tough for you to refute. (Remember, not every point they make is baseless.) You’ll be in a lot better position if you can humbly laugh at yourself than if you find yourself like a deer caught in the headlights. The taller your pedestal, the further you will fall.[/li]
[li] 9. Don’t carry baggage. Leave your agenda at home. Don’t come in like the crusader who is trying to save the world. Don’t tell them that their children will be destroyed by creationism. History and common sense testify differently. This is simply not as important to them as it is to you. The more nonchalant and less impassioned you can be, the better. You aren’t pushing evolution on them because it is morally right; you are presenting evolution to them because it makes sense. Don’t waste time insisting that evolution is a fact while creation is a myth, unless you are prepared to pass around a fly that they can watch evolve into something else. Gish and company are absolutely delighted when you start stomping your feet and screaming, “Those are MY cigarettes, Nurse Ratchet!” Simply say calmly, “I didn’t witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but I can see the signatures.”[/li]
[*] 10. Know your enemy. Be prepared. There is a myth afloat that creationists are rigid dogmatists who never change their positions. Believe that at your own peril. You will be submarined when Gish calmly states that the data has convinced them that new species can come from old species and that they now hold the position that microevolution occurs within a higher order than species. Bang, you’re dead. Half of what you had prepared as argument is now out the window. Don’t let them sneak up on you by using old notes. Go straight to the horse’s mouth, the ICR. Browse their website. Read their latest press releases and papers. Don’t think you’re dealing with a bunch of fools.[/ul]
I think Liberal is actually right that ridicule just tends to make the ordinary people feel defensive, small and bullied. It confirms the rhetoric they hear from the leaders that they are being “persecuted” and can easily be misinterpreted as ridicule of per se religious faith. Guys like Ken Ham deserve to be ridiculed because they know they’re selling snake oil but their pecuniary targets are more victims than villains.
In all my experience with the EvC debate, both in real life and on line, I’ve found that calling people stupid never makes anyone think and only makes them defensive. I’ve found that a far more effective approach is to start by explaining what evolution is NOT. It is not a theory about the origins of the universe. It is not a theory about the origin of life. It is not a theory about the existence of God. It only addresses what happened after life began on earth.
Once these points are established, I’ve found that it defangs the issue enough that they’re at least willing to listen. I think those misperecptions about evolution play a large role in people’s reticence to accept it and have more than a little to do with the alarming numbers of Americans who tell pollsters they don’t believe in it. That’s not an accident. Guys like Hovind and Ham deliberately, intentionally conflate biological evolution with questions of theism and origins so as to set up a false dichotomy. They want people to think that evolutionary theory is atheistic by definition and they want people to think that criticism of YEC is a de facto criticism of faith. That way it’s never about science vs. mythology, it’s science vs. GOD. It’s a classic element of con artistry. Anyone who tries to tell you it’s a con is one of THEM.
I stated that it implied the large majority of christians were creationists. NOT the majority of american citizens. 51% polled were creationists. The other 49% were the noncreationist christians, the areligious (about 15%), and the “other” religions (about 5% of the population). That leaves less than 30% as noncreationist christians. So 5 of 8 christians are creationists, or 63% of christians are creationists. A significant majority.
See?
Thanks Liberal, that sounds like a good checklist for debate. Unfortunately, the majority of my convo’s with Creationists tend to start with them asking why I am an atheist. I start to explain how some of the sciences are in complete disagreement with a literal interpretation of Genesis and how that caused me to come to a realization that any belief I had in God was not based on any evidence (I know your opinion on this and I don’t want to go there) and that to be intellectually honest, for myself, I realized that… Whammo! we are stuck discussing evolution.
Because if they can show me how evolution is wrong and Genesis is right, my faith will magically reappear and all will be well with my soul. I envy your experience in dispassionate debates, my experience hasn’t been so pleasant. Even in those conversations I do follow those same points you listed except for #7. If you don’t go for the kill some Creationists will forget that they conceded the point, and my audience is also my “opponent”