WE CHALLENGE DAWKINS TO A DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC

irishconvert

Well not me personally, but Harum Yahya. I was watching one of his videos over the weekend where he says Richard Dalkins refused to have a debate with him about Darwinism. This is the link from his website, just wondering what you guys make of it...

http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/dawkins_challenge.php

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

*groan*

--edit

I ****ing hate creationists.

Mena

Why argue with idiots.

I was going to expand a little on this after I had a cup of coffee, but as usual, Wicknight has hit the nail on the head and put forth the argument far more eloquently than I ever could.

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

Well not me personally, but Harum Yahya. I was watching one of his videos over the weekend where he says Richard Dalkins refused to have a debate with him about Darwinism. This is the link from his website, just wondering what you guys make of it...

http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/dawkins_challenge.php

Dawkins has always (or at least for a while) subscribed to the idea that debating with Creationists simply gives their cause the fuel they require to paint the picture that there is actually a debate going on about the validity of Evolution.

{EDIT} The "pause" Dawkins gives in that edited out of context video on the page you link to was actually Dawkins realizing he was debating with Creationists about Creationism, rather than what the documentary crew had request the interview for (for Christians Creationists spend an awful lot of time lying about stuff). The question asked by the interviewer (who is not the person edited into the video) has been answered many times, including by Dawkins. He would have no trouble answering the question, the pause was him thinking about how he was going to ask them to get out of his house :pac:{/EDIT}

As the Creationist thread on the Christian forum demonstrates, debating with Creationists is ultimately rather pointless because to a Creationist it is not about finding out the scientific truth of something, it is about attempting to put forward a particular religious position that they have already decided cannot be wrong

Time and time again Wolfsbane and JC (the regular Creationist posters on that thread) have put forward arguments and positions that they say undermines Evolutionary theory.

Time and time again these arguments have been refuted by other posters, often to the point of silliness (JC and Wolfsbane still go on about the probability of a protein forming by chance as being too high to be possible despite the fact that evolution has never claimed a protein formed by chance and such an assertion would go against the idea of evolution!) At no point in the entire debate have either Wolfsbane or JC ever acknowledged this or suggested that they accept that evolution is a sound scientific model.

As far as they are concerned they have already been informed by God himself that evolution is wrong, and now it is simply a case of finding out why it is wrong. If one misinformed argument fails they simply move on to the next misinformed argument.

So TBH I fully understand Dawkins position. The Creationists get some oxygen out of the idea that Dakwins is scared to debate with them (I don't think anyone believes that except people who are already Creationists), but the alternative is that they get far more oxygen out of Dawkins legitimizing their nonsense by debating it.

There is also the problem, again demonstrated by the Creationist thread, that the way Creationists debate is nonsense from a scientific position, because again they are not debating for the purpose of understanding, they are debating for the purpose of confusion, to allow space for their nonsense to live.

DapperGent

CAPS beat reasoned refutation everytime though tbh.

pH

Just to echo the above, I think Dawkins is correct, it's shown to be too easy by Creationist speakers (who know what they're doing) to open their cupboard of untruths, half-truths and delusions and throw them out. Whoever is defending evolution then spends their time back peddling and refuting nonsense, which turns the debate audience off them right away.

Evolution is a scientific theory, its correctness is not determined by debate, who's the best speaker or who's cleverest. If anyone wants to refute it then find the evidence and publish.

Also worth mentioning that Harun cannot tell the difference between a sea snake and an eel, nor the difference between a real fly and a fly-fisherman's fly, why would anyone want to debate him?
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2833,UPDATED-Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins,page42

PDN

Challenging someone to a public debate is a load of crap. Insecure nobodies want to boost their publicity by debating someone who is streets ahead of them in terms of public recognition. If the famous person is stupid enough to accept the challenge then the insecure nobody adds 'Publicly debated Richard Dawkins' to their CV. If the famous person ignores this nonsense then the insecure nobody accuses them of running scared.

I hereby challenge the Pope, George Bush, and the Dalai Lama to a public debate!

Dades

What is it they say?

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

PDN wrote: »

I hereby challenge the Pope, George Bush, and the Dalai Lama to a public debate!

I want a front row seat for that debate.

Zillah

By the Gods of Kobol, that site is painful to read! They use the word "chance" dozens of times in reference to evolution (as we all know evolution doesn't depend upon chance, but natural selection), claim that evolution attempts to explain the origin of the universe and utterly mis-represents Dawkins' views.

Then, and this is where is gets bad, they present four crucial points that Dawkins must address in regard to the origin of species. I shall summarise them as follows:

1 - Justify our ludicrous misunderstandings about evolution.
2 - Justify our ludicrous misunderstandings about evolution.
2 - Explain the nature of subjective conciousness.
3 - Explain the nature of subjective conciousness.

Some of it is also phrased in rather unusual English.

Responding to this drivel is beneath me, let alone a renowned evolutionary biologist.

AtomicHorror

irishconvert wrote: »

Well not me personally, but Harum Yahya. I was watching one of his videos over the weekend where he says Richard Dalkins refused to have a debate with him about Darwinism. This is the link from his website, just wondering what you guys make of it...

http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/dawkins_challenge.php

Why would Dawkin's argue in favour of Darwinism? Does he mean evolution?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Challenging someone to a public debate is a load of crap. Insecure nobodies want to boost their publicity by debating someone who is streets ahead of them in terms of public recognition. If the famous person is stupid enough to accept the challenge then the insecure nobody adds 'Publicly debated Richard Dawkins' to their CV. If the famous person ignores this nonsense then the insecure nobody accuses them of running scared.

I hereby challenge the Pope, George Bush, and the Dalai Lama to a public debate!

Very true. In the case of creationism there's another motive:

They like to get new material that they can quote out of context, or (if they've got a video) edit out of context. I think someone mentioned a video that caused Dawkin's to pause a moment. Various edited versions of this have been uploaded to YouTube with the pause rather crudely edited to extend its length.

Dawkins just got tired of being lied about, so he stopped engaging with them.

Zillah

This guy gets better and better. He published a book claiming the holocaust was actually just caused by disease, his research institute lost several civil suits for defamation, he's been convicted for running an illegal organisation, and many believe he's engaged in rape and blackmail. He also thinks terrorism, Nazism and Buddhism are caused by darwinism. Also, Intelligent Design is a tool of Satan...for some odd reason. Well, off you go Professor Dawkins, you can fit him in after golf with Putin.

jill_valentine

What a carefree secret agent lifestyle Dawkins has, eh Zillah?

cavedave

Originally Posted by PDN View Post
I hereby challenge the Pope, George Bush, and the Dalai Lama to a public debate!

If you are on to the intelligent designer can you ask him to explain the scrotum? I mean I can appreciate creationists talking about the wonder of the eye but why do they always ignore the obvious intelligence needed to hang a wrinkly bag off mammals?

DapperGent

Indeed on many unfortunate occasions during my life I have had cause to wish our illustrious creator had seen fit to stow the nutsack in a more protected area.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

titanium shielded nutsacks would be all the evidence I needed of a divine creator.

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote: »

titanium shielded nutsacks would be all the evidence I needed of a divine creator.

God couldn't do that, it would interferer with our free will, the choice to pay a woman (or man, what ever is your bag) kick you in the nut sack :pac:

jill_valentine

I'd quite like to able to shoot lasers out of my eyes.

robindch

irishconvert wrote: »

I was watching one of his videos over the weekend where he says Richard Dalkins refused to have a debate with him about Darwinism.

Given that the White-Suited-One is either inside a Turkish jail or heading into one shortly, I think it's unreasonable to expect Dawkins to follow him in.

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

If one misinformed argument fails they simply move on to the next misinformed argument.

Until they get to the end of their list of misinformed arguments... and then they start again!

irishconvert

Zillah wrote: »

This guy gets better and better. He published a book claiming the holocaust was actually just caused by disease, his research institute lost several civil suits for defamation, he's been convicted for running an illegal organisation, and many believe he's engaged in rape and blackmail. He also thinks terrorism, Nazism and Buddhism are caused by darwinism. Also, Intelligent Design is a tool of Satan...for some odd reason. Well, off you go Professor Dawkins, you can fit him in after golf with Putin.

Who wrote the content in that Wikipedia page?

In this interview Yahya says he did not write that book you mention about the Holocaust.

ChocolateSauce

I own a copy of his "Atlas of Creation". I misappropriated it from the library in my secondary school (I figure the good I did outweighs the wrong of stealing). It is 1000, fully coloured, glossy A4 pages of unadulterated tripe (unadulterated by fact). The first half of the book is comprised of pictures of fossils along with a statement to the tune of "This fossil is xxx million years old, and is no different from the organism of today. Therefore, evolution is false." The second half of the book is a series of essays about why evolution is wrong and about the bold Darwinist-Atheist-Communist conspiracy to take over the world. There is a picture of Darwin next to Marx and Trotsky.

Finally, and most chillingly, the last 20 pages of the book are filled will the index of books he has written. 20 pages listing books, some of which are clearly written jointly between the extremes of Christianity and Islam. The funding is massive and clandestine, a huge anti-scientific alliance designed to destroy modern and western society.

Zillah

irishconvert wrote: »

Who wrote the content in that Wikipedia page?

Many people, presumably. Its all referenced. They claim it was revealed over the course of the civil court case.

In this interview Yahya says he did not write that book you mention about the Holocaust.

Well if the insane, lying, rapacious, blackmailing creationist/convict said he didn't write it then who are we to believe otherwise!

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

In this interview Yahya says he did not write that book you mention about the Holocaust.

He didn't write it, he published it, which is what the Wikipedia page says. You will notice in the interview he doesn't deny this, he says it isn't one of his books (meaning he didn't write it).

BTW what do you think of the comments people have made in reply to your original post?

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

He didn't write it, he published it, which is what the Wikipedia page says.

Nu uh!

Wikipedia wrote:

During the trial in September, Baykam exposed the real author of the book as Adnan Oktar.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Nu uh!

ah, so he is a liar as well as a nut case

irishconvert

Wicknight wrote: »

He didn't write it, he published it, which is what the Wikipedia page says. You will notice in the interview he doesn't deny this, he says it isn't one of his books (meaning he didn't write it).

BTW what do you think of the comments people have made in reply to your original post?

Well I am keeping an open mind. I need to read more about the guy and his work before I make a decision. Don't want to depend on what Wikipedia says, which could be written by anybody (never understand why people quote Wikipedia as fact, discussion for another day though).

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

Well I am keeping an open mind. I need to read more about the guy and his work before I make a decision. Don't want to depend on what Wikipedia says, which could be written by anybody (never understand why people quote Wikipedia as fact, discussion for another day though).

true about Wikipedia, but then that also applies to this guy. He is an "anybody"

Anybody, with enough money, can self-publish a book of nonsense and then challenge Richard Dawkins (or the Pope, or George Bush) to a public debate about it.

What about this guy is making you take your time finding out more about him?

marco_polo

irishconvert wrote: »

Well I am keeping an open mind. I need to read more about the guy and his work before I make a decision. Don't want to depend on what Wikipedia says, which could be written by anybody (never understand why people quote Wikipedia as fact, discussion for another day though).

You must have way too time on your hands if you are prepared go to great lengths to find out about every anti-semetic nut job in the world.

O'Morris

I think Richard Dawkins is wrong not to debate with Darwinism skeptics. I've been reading up on intelligent design and creationism lately, and although I don't entirely agree with them, I am starting to find some of their arguments plausible. I'd really like to hear him respond to some of them. He has been referred to as Darwin's Rottweiler after all and so maybe he should be doing more to live up to that reputation.

Wicknight wrote:

Dawkins has always (or at least for a while) subscribed to the idea that debating with Creationists simply gives their cause the fuel they require to paint the picture that there is actually a debate going on about the validity of Evolution.

There clearly is a debate going on about the validity of evolution. Just because it isn't going on in the scientific community doesn't mean there isn't a debate. By refusing to engage in that debate evolutionists are leaving it up to Darwinist supporters who are far less capable of arguing the case for evolution than people like Richard Dawkins are. I watched a debate on youtube recently between Michael Shermer and the creationist Kent Hovind. The smug evolutionist was hammered by the well prepared and articulate creationist.

If Richard Dawkins took up the cause of defending Darwinism with as much commitment as he has taken up the cause of attacking religion maybe he might make more of an impact. He's a scientist and so his energies would be better spent engaging in scientific debates rather than in philosophical or theological ones.

Dades

O'Morris wrote: »

I've been reading up on intelligent design and creationism lately, and although I don't entirely agree with them, I am starting to find some of their arguments plausible.

Post an argument you find potentially plausible here, and I will guarantee you someone will have a logical, rational, scientific rebuttal for that argument in very short order.

The ID argument will undoubtably (and possibly deliberately) have been born of incorrect or misleading science.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

O'Morris wrote: »

I think Richard Dawkins is wrong not to debate with Darwinism skeptics. I've been reading up on intelligent design and creationism lately, and although I don't entirely agree with them, I am starting to find some of their arguments plausible. I'd really like to hear him respond to some of them. He has been referred to as Darwin's Rottweiler after all and so maybe he should be doing more to live up to that reputation.




There clearly is a debate going on about the validity of evolution. Just because it isn't going on in the scientific community doesn't mean there isn't a debate. By refusing to engage in that debate evolutionists are leaving it up to Darwinist supporters who are far less capable of arguing the case for evolution than people like Richard Dawkins are. I watched a debate on youtube recently between Michael Shermer and the creationist Kent Hovind. The smug evolutionist was hammered by the well prepared and articulate creationist.

If Richard Dawkins took up the cause of defending Darwinism with as much commitment as he has taken up the cause of attacking religion maybe he might make more of an impact. He's a scientist and so his energies would be better spent engaging in scientific debates rather than in philosophical or theological ones.

Dawkins is an academic. He should be above getting into petty argumants about fairy tales.

marco_polo

O'Morris wrote: »

I think Richard Dawkins is wrong not to debate with Darwinism skeptics. I've been reading up on intelligent design and creationism lately, and although I don't entirely agree with them, I am starting to find some of their arguments plausible. I'd really like to hear him respond to some of them. He has been referred to as Darwin's Rottweiler after all and so maybe he should be doing more to live up to that reputation.




There clearly is a debate going on about the validity of evolution. Just because it isn't going on in the scientific community doesn't mean there isn't a debate. By refusing to engage in that debate evolutionists are leaving it up to Darwinist supporters who are far less capable of arguing the case for evolution than people like Richard Dawkins are. I watched a debate on youtube recently between Michael Shermer and the creationist Kent Hovind. The smug evolutionist was hammered by the well prepared and articulate creationist.

If Richard Dawkins took up the cause of defending Darwinism with as much commitment as he has taken up the cause of attacking religion maybe he might make more of an impact. He's a scientist and so his energies would be better spent engaging in scientific debates rather than in philosophical or theological ones.

So which is it then, should he engage in scientific debate or debate with creationists?

The two are mutually exclusive.

Zombrex

O'Morris wrote: »

I think Richard Dawkins is wrong not to debate with Darwinism skeptics. I've been reading up on intelligent design and creationism lately, and although I don't entirely agree with them, I am starting to find some of their arguments plausible. I'd really like to hear him respond to some of them. He has been referred to as Darwin's Rottweiler after all and so maybe he should be doing more to live up to that reputation.

Have you read any of his books? In them he pretty much dismantles any arguments, Creationist or otherwise, that Darwinian evolution cannot account for biological life on Earth.

The point though is that all of this was properly debated over the last 100 years. Darwinian evolution emerged as the most plausible and workable explanation for how life develops.

The Creationists are late to the party. And their objections are not based on actual problems with Darwinian evolution (those problems were debated decades ago), they are based on theological objections.

O'Morris wrote: »

There clearly is a debate going on about the validity of evolution.

There really isn't.

Darwinian evolution is one of the most supported scientific theories ever developed. Hundreds of thousands of scientists used evolutionary models every day in a wide range of biological fields, from medicine to genetic research.

If evolution was an invalid, grossly inaccurate model then the only way to explain how any of these people could be doing any work using these models would be simple random chance. That being the scientific models they are using are incorrect but they just happen to give an accurate answer, over and over and over hundreds of thousands of times a day, 7 days a way, 52 weeks a year etc etc.

Creationists like to go on about odds, I would be interested in their take on the odds of that

It is simple ridiculous to even suggest that evolution is wrong but all these people keep getting the correct answers from their models by some fluke. The much more plausible explanation is that the models are in fact correct, and that is why they are giving the correct answers.

O'Morris wrote: »

Just because it isn't going on in the scientific community doesn't mean there isn't a debate.

If the Internet has thought us nothing it is that anyone can start a "debate" if they want to. Because something is debated on the Internet really doesn't mean a whole lot. Look at something like the JFK assassination, or the 9/11 attacks, or the Holocaust. There will always be someone, some where, who objects to almost anything. The Internet simply allows them to be more vocal than they once were before.

O'Morris wrote: »

If Richard Dawkins took up the cause of defending Darwinism with as much commitment as he has taken up the cause of attacking religion maybe he might make more of an impact.

Well considering he has wrote one book "attacking religion", and about eight books attempting to explain Darwinian evolution, along with countless articles and essays, I think it is safe to say he has played his part in trying to explain evolution to the ignorant masses. :rolleyes:

Have you read any of his books on evolution? Would you like him to write another book about evolution perhaps?

Zombrex

marco_polo wrote: »

So which is it then, should he engage in scientific debate or debate with creationists?

The two are mutually exclusive.

Good point

It is a bit silly to complain that Dawkins should stick to science and stop faffing around in the area of religion, while also saying he should start endless debates with every religious whack job that comes out of the wood work complaining that his particular religion's creation myth conflicts with modern scientific understanding (which would pretty much be all of them)

I mean should Dawkins be debating the guy in Scotland who thinks he is a Viking and believes in the Viking gods, or the guy in Peru who believes we all arrived here a few hundred years ago in space ships?

Or is it only the Biblical Creationists that one should engage?

robindch

O'Morris wrote: »

I think Richard Dawkins is wrong not to debate with Darwinism skeptics.

Not all that wrong -- most are too scared to go up against him and of the few that aren't, the most well-known is... well... let me get to that...

O'Morris wrote: »

I watched a debate on youtube recently between Michael Shermer and the creationist Kent Hovind. The smug evolutionist was hammered by the well prepared and articulate creationist.

If you enjoy Hovind, you should consider writing him a thank-you note. He's currently holed up in FCI Edgefield, South Carolina, where he goes by the name of prisoner number 06452-017. Due out in 2015.

Like above with the Whitened-One from Turkey who'll be studying the walls of Turkish prisons for years to come too, it's perhaps unrealistic to expect an Oxford academic to go to prison to debate his fulminating, hyperventilating opposite numbers from in front of the bars that they're behind.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I watched a debate on youtube recently between Michael Shermer and the creationist Kent Hovind. The smug evolutionist was hammered by the well prepared and articulate creationist.

I saw that debate. Michael shermer won hands down. No contest, no difficulty. In fact the video I watched was titled 'kent hovind schools michael shermer' which I thought was a god damn hilarious name considering the exact opposite happened.

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote: »

I saw that debate. Michael shermer won hands down. No contest, no difficulty. In fact the video I watched was titled 'kent hovind schools michael shermer' which I thought was a god damn hilarious name considering the exact opposite happened.

Heck Hovind is regularly attacked by other Creationists (Young Earth and Old Earth) for talking utter nonsense and giving Creationism a bad name. If other Creationists think you are a bull that means something!

But judging by his numerous run ins with the law I don't think anyone seriously believes Hovind had any motivation behind any of this beyond making himself money.

AtomicHorror

O'Morris wrote: »

I think Richard Dawkins is wrong not to debate with Darwinism skeptics. I've been reading up on intelligent design and creationism lately, and although I don't entirely agree with them, I am starting to find some of their arguments plausible. I'd really like to hear him respond to some of them. He has been referred to as Darwin's Rottweiler after all and so maybe he should be doing more to live up to that reputation.

Some shameless self-promotion here but this rather rambling essay pretty much pulls the rug out from under ID-style creationism. I posted the core argument to the infamous creationism thread about 2-3 weeks ago and it has yet to be refuted. Maybe it's crap, but it makes sense to me.

O'Morris wrote: »

There clearly is a debate going on about the validity of evolution.

The debate was conceived-of, and is entirely perpetuated by, the creationist movement. Were it not for their constant campaigning, even this vocal minority would barely register.

O'Morris wrote: »

Just because it isn't going on in the scientific community doesn't mean there isn't a debate.

If the topic were the validity of the theory of gravity, how much weight (ho ho) would you give to a non-scientific debate? I'm not advocating scientific elitism here, but let's call a spade a spade. This is a media circus, not a debate.

O'Morris wrote: »

By refusing to engage in that debate evolutionists are leaving it up to Darwinist supporters who are far less capable of arguing the case for evolution than people like Richard Dawkins are. I watched a debate on youtube recently between Michael Shermer and the creationist Kent Hovind. The smug evolutionist was hammered by the well prepared and articulate creationist.

If Richard Dawkins took up the cause of defending Darwinism with as much commitment as he has taken up the cause of attacking religion maybe he might make more of an impact. He's a scientist and so his energies would be better spent engaging in scientific debates rather than in philosophical or theological ones.

Take a look at the creationism thread on the Christianity board and you'll see why Dawkins can't be arsed. You could spend your life repeating yourself and never convince the creationists. In the process, your meaning will be deliberately or ignorantly misinterpreted, you will be quoted out of context and occasionally it will be suggested that you are motivated by a wicked soul and that damnation awaits you. These guys have decided what "right" is and now they want to prove it.

Zillah

After watching the Shermer debate I've concluded something: The debate format is not suited to the pro-science side of it. Scientific theories are complicated and difficult to understand and draw from innumerable sources, whereas creationist arguments are very easy to convert into snappy one liners.

pH

Zillah wrote: »

After watching the Shermer debate I've concluded something: The debate format is not suited to the pro-science side of it. Scientific theories are complicated and difficult to understand and draw from innumerable sources, whereas creationist arguments are very easy to convert into snappy one liners.

Exactly, this happens in many debates of this type, Creationists throw out their snappy one liners and the scientist has no real good option to reply.

So in a debate setting, he throws out "Piltdown man", what to do? Ignore it ... "OMG he can't answer!", Be dismissive ... "Arrogant scientist etc. etc." or a long dry explanation ... crowd falls asleep and creationist ignores it anyway and moves on to say "Dinosaur and human footprints" or "T-Rex tissue found in 'fossil'. Ad infinitum.

Which brings me to a question, in a live debate setting, in front of say a crowd receptive to ID/Creationism and faced with a creationist debater willing to throw around "footprints", "Piltdown man", "T-Rex tissues" and "This 'scientist' I had this chunk of rock 'carbon' dated and it said it was created last Tuesday", what's the best way of countering them and staying on the offensive?

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

Which brings me to a question, in a live debate setting, in front of say a crowd receptive to ID/Creationism and faced with a creationist debater willing to throw around "footprints", "Piltdown man", "T-Rex tissues" and "This 'scientist' I had this chunk of rock 'carbon' dated and it said it was created last Tuesday", what's the best way of countering them and staying on the offensive?

To be honest, a non-mixed crowd is a no-win scenario any way you swing it. You want as random a crowd as is practical. You also want a chairperson to keep the debate in order. Otherwise the whole thing is just a shouting match.

Panda

cavedave wrote: »

If you are on to the intelligent designer can you ask him to explain the scrotum? I mean I can appreciate creationists talking about the wonder of the eye but why do they always ignore the obvious intelligence needed to hang a wrinkly bag off mammals?

Billy Connolly answered that one ages ago,

he forgot about the nuts until the last minute and he had some left over elbow skin.
simple as that.

he strikes me as just another crackpot by the looks of things.
take a look at the about the author page, there must be 20 photos of himself in various months.

the only thing that he achieves with it is that he looks like a pedo.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

what's the best way of countering them and staying on the offensive?

The only weapon the scientist has is to say (repeat) that Creationism isn't science.

Most people believe a scientist when he says something isn't science. And it is relatively easy to explain what something has to be to be considered proper science (falsifiable, testable, modelable) in language a lay person can understand. It puts the Creationist on the back foot trying to explain why it is science and they simply don't have an explanation for that, because it isn't science.

Creationist try to change the definition of science, and all the scientist has to do to win the argument is point this out. The Creationists look like they are cheating, as they did in the Dover trial when they had to admit that astrology would fall under their definition of "science".

This does possible open up the charge of arrogance, but if the scientist handles it well, in a matter of fact way ("something either is or is not science", that sort of thing) then I think they will come out well. I would avoid mentioning evidence, Creationists just counter that they have the same evidence that everyone else does, instead I would focus on models and testability. Can you test ID? Can you test Biblical Creation? How do you determine it didn't happen?

The trick is to not let them go on this point. The charge that Creationism is not science comes up a lot on the Creationist thread bringing JC and Wolfsbane's rants to a screeching halt, but they simple ignore it and move on to something else. They have to, they don't have a response, no Creationist does, beyond trying to redefine what science actually is. Most don't bother, they simply try to debate something else.

So if I was ever debating a Creationist that would be my line of attack, probably my only one because anything else gets into a debate where the Creationist has the advantage of nonsense.

robindch

pH wrote: »

Which brings me to a question, in a live debate setting, in front of say a crowd receptive to ID/Creationism [...] what's the best way of countering them and staying on the offensive?

If one does have to debate with them in a public setting -- and I don't think that honest people should -- I've come around to the sad view that there's no alternative to being Christopher Hitchens.

Fire and brimstone is what they're used to, so give it to them.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

Creationist try to change the definition of science, and all the scientist has to do to win the argument is point this out. The Creationists look like they are cheating, as they did in the Dover trial when they had to admit that astrology would fall under their definition of "science"
...

So if I was ever debating a Creationist that would be my line of attack, probably my only one because anything else gets into a debate where the Creationist has the advantage of nonsense.

I agree with parts, but I'm not sure that turning the debate into a debate about science is necessarily the right thing to do. The internet is different, J C's points can be picked apart at leisure, and links and evidence can be provided.

Also you're hoping that the audience will appreciate science, the creationist may not be trying to win his debate using "ID is science" but may be on the "Materialist reductionist science can't tell us everything" path.

Also when the creationist is throwing around *specifics* in a live debate, ignoring those points and trying a Popperian debate about what is science may seem evasive and lose the audience in boring philosophical detail:

"I notice my esteemed opponent is so embarrassed about the evidence I've so far brought up they've ignored it and spent the last 5 minutes lecturing you on how to define 'science' so that they're always right."

AtomicHorror wrote:

To be honest, a non-mixed crowd is a no-win scenario any way you swing it. You want as random a crowd as is practical. You also want a chairperson to keep the debate in order. Otherwise the whole thing is just a shouting match.

I didn't mean a pro-creationism crowd, I meant a general non-academic audience who obviously are at the debate because they're interested in the subject, don't presume a room full of academic scientists here to watch a creationist lose a debate . I'm not sure how a chairperson can help, unless they would be willing to jump in and disallow the most common and blatant creationist claims.

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

I didn't mean a pro-creationism crowd, I meant a general non-academic audience who obviously are at the debate because they're interested in the subject, don't presume a room full of academic scientists here to watch a creationist lose a debate . I'm not sure how a chairperson can help, unless they would be willing to jump in and disallow the most common and blatant creationist claims.

Were they to do so, I imagine that this would be presented by the creationists as evidence of a bias on the part of the chair. I was more thinking in terms of fairly allocating time to speak, blocking attempts to interrupt etc.

pH

robindch wrote: »

If one does have to debate with them in a public setting -- and I don't think that honest people should -- I've come around to the sad view that there's no alternative to being Christopher Hitchens.

Fire and brimstone is what they're used to, so give it to them.

Interesting (if sad) point, and probably why Dawkins is the worst possible choice to debate a creationist. Hitchens could deflect any of the standard creationist nonsense by saying "T-Rex tissues - why ask me - do I look like a scientist?" and continue on his topics, Dawkins on the other hand (and there's examples of this on youtube) gets annoyed and seems to have to try and correct the 'errors' as he sees them, getting dragged into the scientific minutiae.

Probably the best person to debate a creationist would be one of the current crop of atheist comedians or pundits.

jill_valentine

I think Dara O'Briain could be a handy compromise...

Dades

No way - Ricky Gervais!

The Mad Hatter

Nice little rant on Ken Ham today on Pharyngula.

And the Lord said click here and your questions will be answered.