Why won't the Creationists talk turkey?

Great Debates
61

Try presenting my quotes in context, Beeblebrox:

"Frankly, I find it a little annoying that some people here would expect me to “crow” at the ignorance of anyone with an honest desire to learn."

I make no bones about the fact that I’m crowing about the arrogance and cowardice of creationist know-it-alls who pontificate on evolution without having the foggiest idea what they’re talking about.

Walor, did you take this as crowing, or did you take it as a metaphor?

These weren’t even directed at creationists- they were directed at pldennison!

You go on to state:

When did I demand that creationists agree with me?

How so? The only people who will be “trapped” by my OP are people who pontificate from a position of total, arrogant ignorance.

**

I didn’t begin this debate. Wildest Bill and Mahaloth did, when they sniped on evolution. I politely gave them an opportunity to back up their statements, and they fled. You might find my Medicine-Show approach offensive, but it’s the only thing that’s gotten a response out of the creationists. Sdimbert has already agreed to study further.

**

Nonsense. Creationists claim- and not always implicitly- to know molecular biology better than all the evolutionist molecular biologists in the world. I’ve written my questions on a level that anyone with even a basic knowledge of molecular biology can understand, so surely experts who have found flaws invisible to the best evolutionist minds will have no problem with it.

Of course, if a creationist doesn’t take the swaggering approach of WB or Mahaloth, I’m more than happy to help him.

-Ben

62

**

Apology freely accepted.

**

You don’t have to read it in time to respond to my questions. But if you believe that all the evolutionist scientists are wrong (in other words, if you believe in creation science,) then I ask that you at least read the FAQ. I don’t ask you to read it in the hope that you will change your opinion, but I do ask in the hope that you will have an informed opinion, and that you will learn some things that might be of interest to you.

I would also hope that you could present me with a critique, if you find anything that you think needs improvement.

I’m not searching for a creationist who knows enough to debate with me, because I know I won’t find one. I realize that this will sound provocative, but the simple fact of the matter is that if anyone is knowledgeable enough to intelligently debate these issues, then either they’re an evolutionist, or they believe in a creationist scheme that is 90% evolution. What I’m really looking for is honest creationists, and I’ve found one.

Let me state, however, that if any creationist wants to answer the 11 questions, I might be surprised, but I will listen with an open mind. My “crowing” is reserved purely for the people who try to prove evolution wrong by making an end-run around the stumpers.

-Ben

63

Thanks for the compliment! I have a few things to say about Darwin’s Radio, but I think Beeblebrox’s old thread is (for obvious reasons) a more appropriate place for it. Here’s the link:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78775

I’ll bump the thread with my critique of the book.

-Ben

64

[hijack]
Ben, if this belongs elsewhere, either in another forum or e-mail, I’ll be happy to take it there, but for the nonce, I’m going to say it here.

Despite whatever your feelings may be, I do not bear you ill will over the exchange to which you linked. I find it unproductive, by and large, to hold grudges, with a few exceptions. If you bear me ill will, well, I think it’s your problem. But to accuse me of “dishonest criticism” is patently offensive. I have never met you IRL; I can only offer criticism based on the words you type. And my honest criticism was and still is that you revel a bit too much in the, as I termed it, “'Aha! Factor” when speaking to religious people. You may disagree with my criticism, but I won’t have it called dishonest.

Similarly, your OP name-checked three individuals who happen to subscribe to or at least defend a Judeo-Christian creation story. Based on that OP, I wouldn’t think it would be unreasonable to assume that the OP was addressed to Christians (and Jews). Your further mention of “design” and other buzzwords associated with Judeo-Christian “creation science” leads one further in this direction; it’s pretty obvious you aren’t addressing the Navajo or the Inuit. If I’m mistaken about the audience you’re addressing, then I’m mistaken. But dishonest? No.

I’m no molecular biologist. I’m not even, by trade, a scientist. But I have a massive appreciation for science. I never fail to defend “evilution” (Beeblebrox, that’s what some fundamentalists call “evolution”) against its less-bright detractors. If you want to make enemies of the people in your corner, go for it. I would take a different tack, but that’s just me.

Finally, I did find your link extremely helpful. As science, and biology in particular, become increasingly complicated in scope, it becomes more and more difficult to write for the layman. It’s obvious that you put some work into that page, and I for one appreciate it.

[/hijack]

65

**

If I might make an analogy:

Suppose your roommate were drinking milk straight out of the carton. “Hey- I told you not to do that!” “What- you still hold a grudge against me for the last time I drank milk out of the carton? :rolleyes: You’d be a lot healthier if you didn’t hold grudges. Glugluglug…”

**

Let’s look at your actual criticism:

“I might add that there is a certain tone of, “Foolish Christians–we scientists have all the answers! Bwaaaahahahahahaha!” in the OP as well, intended or not.”

(Not “Christians (and Jews)”, but “Christians.”)

Look at it this way: let’s assume that we know that WB, ImNotMad, and Mahaloth are all caucasian. Suppose someone had posted:

“I might add that there is a certain tone of, “Foolish White people- scientists have all the answers! Bwaaaahahahahahaha!” in the OP as well, intended or not.”

…and then they defended this mischaracterization that since the three people involved were White, obviously it’s not directed at creationists, despite the fact that I explicitly directed the OP towards creationists in general and said nothing whatosever about race. Don’t you think that such a tenuous between-the-lines interpretation- particularly in light of earlier, vehement attacks- would suggest that they were looking for trouble?

Can you see the problem? My complaint with them isn’t that they are Christians- it’s with their behavior as creationists. But instead of accepting my argument at face value as being anti-creationist, you read a broadly anti-Christian slant into my words, even though obviously not all creationists are Christians, and a minority of Christians are creationists. And since you’ve already made what I (and a number of other people) considered to be unreasonable attacks on me, it’s a little hard for me to sit back and say, “Ah- the three people in question happen to be Christians, so obviously that will create an implication that will stand out more strongly than my explicit statements that my thread is directed at ‘any and all believers in creation science’.”

**

Frankly, I’d be pleased as punch for Vine Deloria to step into this thread and take a crack at the 11 questions. I did, after all, state “I ask any and all believers in creation science to put their money where their mouth is by answering these eleven questions.” Admittedly, “creation science,” as the term is typically used, doesn’t usually cover Deloria’s brand of creation science, but I’d still be glad to hear someone argue his point of view.

**

I’m not trying to make enemies. Remember, you attacked me first, and I felt that your earlier attacks consisted mainly of grasping at straws and a total unwillingness to retract your accusations once they were proven to be false. Why, then, should I welcome you to my side?

Thanks, I appreciate that.

-Ben

66

So this thread has really turned into a shouting match, IMHO. I think we have wandered from Ben’s OP, which basically focuses on new findings in evolution mechanics. The creationist arguments that are often trotted out are based on decades old findings. Science keeps moving, and the creationist arguments keep prattling on about carbon 14 decay rates and the speed of light and dinosaurs walking with men and Piltdown Man and all this crap.

They don’t address the real, modern story here. Molecular evolution (which by and large agrees with and upholds the fossil record) paints the picture of billions of years of mutations and genomic overhaul. Furthermore, it shows humans as a non-unique species among thousands, cobbled together mainly out of proteins used throughout the animal kingdom. Only a few human protein families do not exist in yeast. Adding to this is that actual genes are cobbled together out of exons which are used in several different genes. Often, these specific exons code for protein domains which are used in many proteins. Molecular evolution doesn’t stop there. In between the exons are introns, which in the immature RNA transcript, have been found to often have all nature of catalytic activity. These introns can excise themselves, can catalyze some reactions, and even (to a certain extent) replicate themselves.

How do we know that this is not the whim of some omniscient creator? Well, good evidence for that comes from what we find between genes. We find old, discarded genes, which code for nothing. We find remnants of viruses, which may contribute new genetic material, even from other species (and may be linked to large scale genome reorganization). We find ancient duplications and transpositions and inversions. We find exons recruited from neighbors, and exons discarded and left to rot. In short it is a huge ugly mess. Most of the genome does diddly squat. Large deletions are associated with absolutely no decrease in fitness.

In conclusion, molecular genetics shows us all of the missing links, all of the evolutionary dead ends, and all of the other missing data that may have been missed in the fossil record. The data, if taken correctly, provide many answers to what creationists have been pointing to as the “holes” in evolution. It is like we were created with thousands of wisdom teeth and appendicies.

Our “creation” was not directed. Our “creation” is not special. Our “creation” is not irreducibly complex, just a big mess.

Oh, and sdimbert:
I have some experience in debating Jewish creation theories. We have a very dati member of our lab who takes great pleasure in dragging me (an agnostic Jew) through these tortuous routes of logic at every opportunity. I may not be as versed as the exact words of Rashi and Rambam as you, and you may not be as versed in the molecular basis as I, but I would be glad to go a couple of (friendly) rounds with you in a separate thread if you choose to start one.

67

If I only had a brain…

I could explain this better but the point of having a “straw man argument” argument is that it implies that creationists are people scientists should not bother taking on. After all they not strong to change things, or not present. . . . . Riiiiight

When a mars rock was found with possible evidence of life from other planet a government panel was set and during the questions to the scientists a representative replied, seriously, that he was doubtful that the scientists were sincere. Because they were talking about millions and millions of years regarding the rock, that was not what his faith told him. Well almost everybody exploded laughing, but because they were NASA and needed all the politicians support to continue research, the laughter was very nervous.

Right now, many creationist or anti science people are seated in positions of power and they do vote using not science but religion. (Look at cloning). I truly, truly wish they were straw men. And I truly wish they were not present, but we have to deal with them.

Maybe the SDMB is not the place, but I think having a debate like this one is important so the SDMB fellows that do have faith, will use better information against those creationists, because they are more likely to listen to citizens with faith than heathen evolutionists.

68

Be careful to not paint all those who believe in God and creation with the same brush. I’m probably the most frustrating “creationist” you’ll encounter, I support science. I see no conflict because I believe God created a universe with rules. What I am not is a fundie, I don’t believe the creation myth of Genesis is a blueprint for the universe. Some think that the singularity for the big bang was created by a quantum fluctionation, ergo no God. I think that is just an incredibly cool way for God to have created the universe. :smiley:

69

OK, Ben, you’re right. My prior assessment of your attitude towards fundamentalists may have unfairly colored my perception of your OP. I misread your intended audience and for that I apologize. I still contend that the OP is unnecessarily confrontational, but we obviously have differing definitions of that word. I also don’t think my arguments in the thread to which you refer were “proven false” to anyone’s satisfaction but yours, nor that I have a “history” of anything remotely resembling “attacks” on you (look back and you’ll find that in most threads, I’ve agreed with you). So from this point on I’m going to drop it.

70

Which is great, since that means everyone participating in this thread is for the most part cool with you (i.e., no shouting).
What we have instead is deafening silence, as no one present really has that much to fight about.

71

Fake things are real.

72

And what are these “fake things” that you’re referring to?

-Ben

73

I was not referring to a specific thing. Just that if something is fake it also is real. An illusion exists even if it is supposed to be a fake version of something.

74

I expect quite the contrary actually. Some will accuse me of not accepting that science has disproven the existence or action of God while others will question my faith because I don’t believe in a completely literal interpretation of Genesis. Sometimes taking a position that disagrees with both extremes is not the same as compromising for the middle ground.

75

Padeye: Nobody’s shouted at you so far, right? Personally, I would be willing to defend you from attacks from either extreme. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I don’t think you’ll be attacked here.

76

Padeye is the Anti-Christ!

Padeye is the Anti-Christ!

Padeye is the Anti-Christ!

:smiley:

Seriously, Steve, a number of years ago I was lucky enough to hear Dr. Gerald Schroeder lecture on Genesis and the Big Bang at a Discovery Seminar in Jerusalem.

He went through his entire fascinating calculation then ended with the conclusion that 5700 years ago, the Universe was, in the words of the Rambam, “the size of a mustard seed.” Then, for some reason, that tiny Universe exploded, and it’s still expanding today.

I raised my hand and asked, “Doc, Newton taught us that ‘an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.’ So, nu? What’s the outside force?”

He smiled and said, “That, son, is the $64,000 question.”

It’s a nice way to thing about God, if you consider it - The Outside Force.

[sub]By the way, where is that picture? [/sub]

77

I second that.

Amen, brother.

78

“Whether God created the universe is a matter of faith. How He might have done it is a matter of a science.”
–Paraphrased from a forgotten source

79

How could science possibly disprove “existence or action of God”? God is not disprovable.

80

I would point out that what Ben is talking about here is not the question “Does the Universe have a Creator?” I"m sure he has an opinion on that topic as well, but that’s a question for an entirely different thread. What he’s talking about are the questions “Did existing species of life (including human beings) develop by a process of gradual change from other species?” and “Are all living species of life on this planet (including human beings) descended from a common ancestor?” Note also that assertions about whether or not God intervened in this process are also for the most part subjects for an entirely different debate. If you assert that God “guided” the process by which living species–including us–evolved from other species, that’s basically a philosophical debate. If you assert that God miraculously created any particular life-form, and that that life-form is not descended from other forms of life on this planet, you’re making a factual assertion. It’s like the difference between saying “The Allies won World War II because God was on their side”–an endlessly debatable assertion–and “Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Tokyo and Dresden, for that matter) were destroyed by miraculous and supernatural Acts of God, and not by any human action”.

This is a free country, and anyone can have an “opinion” on anything he or she likes. But in order to have an opinion on a question about biology which you can reasonably expect other people to respect, you really need to know something about the subject. (I more or less understand the majority of Ben’s points, so I think my opinions about biology are reasonably well-informed for a layman.) This is of course true about subjects other than biology, and other than science in general. If you don’t know the difference between a spark plug and a shock absorber, people will probably not take your “opinions” about the mechanics of automobiles very seriously.

Other related subjects about which many people seem to have “opinions”, when they know nothing in particular about the subject, include the age of Earth and the Solar System and the age of the Universe. You can be of the “opinion” that the Universe and Solar System are 6,000 years old, or 6 trillion years old, or 31 years old, but if you expect anyone to take your opinion seriously, you’re going to have to be able to discuss all sorts of technical issues that smart-ass geologists and astronomers are going to bring up.