My first real life evolution/creationism debate today

[Darth Servo]

Nothing really noteworthy. Primarily they tried to argue that "miracles" was just as reasonable as objective evidence. The guy tried to "define" miracle as "something that doesn't happen all that often" rather than "something that flies in the face of the laws of physics". When pointed out that his definition was irrational, the response was, "according to your point of view".

I didn't point this out to them at the time but I probably should have said that they're getting their rationale from Star Wars.

Another guy tried the "you don't have evidence of every last step along the way, therefore its all a made up fairy tale and literal creationism is just as good." I explained that evolution may not have a flawless picture and some of the pieces are missing but thats still infinitely better than your "alternative". Evolution (and abiogenesis for that matter, since their big contention on this point was about organic molecules to self replicating DNA) was a jigsaw puzzle with some missing pieces. Creationism was an empty picture frame.

Their main thrust was that "evolutionists" are trained to see evidence one way while creationists are trained to see it another way. They fixated on the cambrian explosion as "proof of creationism" and my protests that it was the exception rather than the rule got brushed to the side.

One girl asked how such complexity could arrise by pure chance. I made an analogy about cars. Our society would fall apart without cars. We are incredibly dependent on cars. Yet just a little more than 100 years ago, our society didn't have any cars. By creationist "logic" our civilization must have been created in its present form by God.

There were other issues but those were the primary ones. Their insistance that evolution (read, everything from the big bang to the present) is taught as dogma and that creationism is simply just a different way of looking at the same evidence and reaching a different conclusion. I think I did a pretty good job at pointing out their logical fallacies but I doubt I convinced anyone. The discussion boiled down to a three against three.

[Justforfun000]

I applaud the try, but the reality is you are going to be on the defensive and the sympathies with the creationism side move than 80% of the time. Why? Read Darth Servo's quote in my sig and you'll have your answer.
Sad but true.

However, this doesn't mean we give up. Educating ANY of the people leads to more sweet reason out there counterracting foolish belief. We need every soldier we can get.

[Cyborg Stan]

Something tells me he already read Darth Servo's quote for some reason.

[Surlethe]

Their main thrust was that "evolutionists" are trained to see evidence one way while creationists are trained to see it another way. They fixated on the cambrian explosion as "proof of creationism" and my protests that it was the exception rather than the rule got brushed to the side.

I find that the best way to deal with the "evolutionists are biased one way, creationists are biased another" is to explain the scientific method. Someone who thinks that people are trained to accept evolution as an assumption doesn't understand the scientific method at all: (a) evolution is a conclusion, not an assumption, and (b) creationists assume the truth of the Bible when there's no need to do so. So, the conflict's not really a competition -- as creationists like to portray it -- between the assumption of the truth of the Bible and the assumption of an evolutionistic worldview, but rather a competition between a more parsimonious and less parsimonious explanation.

To give an example, creationism is literally like someone arguing that we must be able to travel faster than the speed of light because it's possible in Star Wars. When we try to rationalize Star Wars, we have to assume the truth of everything we see in the movies, and work the science around those assumptions. This is precisely how creationists think: they have to assume the truth of the Bible, and work the science around those assumptions. The difference is that we Star Wars fans don't try to say that Star Wars is actually literal reality, and so we aren't compelled to try to alter real-life science so that it describes both reality and Star Wars simultaneously.

[Justforfun000]

Something tells me he already read Darth Servo's quote for some reason.

LOL!! I didn't know what you were talking about until I just noticed it was him I was responding to. Well I can see I'm really on the ball today. Geez.

[General Zod]

The trick with debating fundies is to constantly be on the offensive and not give them a chance to attack your position, as they'll cling onto the slightest hole and poke at it until you get fed up. Especially emphasizing on the absurdity of some of their beliefs and stances. But yeah, never let them get on the offensive if it can be helped.

[Surlethe]

The trick with debating fundies is to constantly be on the offensive and not give them a chance to attack your position, as they'll cling onto the slightest hole and poke at it until you get fed up. Especially emphasizing on the absurdity of some of their beliefs and stances. But yeah, never let them get on the offensive if it can be helped.

Another good tactic I've found is to be friendly about it. If you come off as an asshole, you'll persuade nobody, not the fundie (who may or may not be persuaded anyway) and not the audience (who are your chief target in a real-life debate). I've found that being friendly, making jokes, and in general seeming to try to understand their position and trying to get them to understand your position are very helpful in persuading and not just discovering the truth.

Basically, communicate that your goal is mutual understanding and not to embarass them by ripping their position to shreds, be tactful, and it wouldn't surprise me if you actually made them think about their dogma instead of mindlessly repeating it.

[Justforfun000]

Basically, communicate that your goal is mutual understanding and not to embarass them by ripping their position to shreds, be tactful, and it wouldn't surprise me if you actually made them think about their dogma instead of mindlessly repeating it.

So in other words, do the exact OPPOSITE of what we have been trained to do here.

[General Zod]

The trick with debating fundies is to constantly be on the offensive and not give them a chance to attack your position, as they'll cling onto the slightest hole and poke at it until you get fed up. Especially emphasizing on the absurdity of some of their beliefs and stances. But yeah, never let them get on the offensive if it can be helped.

Another good tactic I've found is to be friendly about it. If you come off as an asshole, you'll persuade nobody, not the fundie (who may or may not be persuaded anyway) and not the audience (who are your chief target in a real-life debate). I've found that being friendly, making jokes, and in general seeming to try to understand their position and trying to get them to understand your position are very helpful in persuading and not just discovering the truth.

Basically, communicate that your goal is mutual understanding and not to embarass them by ripping their position to shreds, be tactful, and it wouldn't surprise me if you actually made them think about their dogma instead of mindlessly repeating it.

That's helpful in real life debates I suppose, but it does help to have a good sense of comedic timing if you're going to make a crack about their position to completely demolish the point while at the same time getting a good chuckle out of any audience. That way you leave them stammering and not able to think of a rebuttle.

[Surlethe]

That's helpful in real life debates I suppose, but it does help to have a good sense of comedic timing if you're going to make a crack about their position to completely demolish the point while at the same time getting a good chuckle out of any audience. That way you leave them stammering and not able to think of a rebuttle.

Indeed, although I'm thinking also of trying to get the fundie to think about his position. If you present yourself as looking for mutual understanding and discovering the truth, then you'll stand a much greater chance of teaching the fundie about evolution and helping to see the problems in his argument.

Kind of reminds me of a relationship help thread in ARSE a while ago, actually. Instead of treating a problem in terms of whose fault it is, treat it as something that both people need to work toward solving as a team. Just that approach will win converts, I think. I know in my friendships, I've agreed that, hey, I'm probably not going to convince anyone, but at least we can work toward mutual understanding, and I've certainly given them a lot to think about.

[drachefly]

It really depends on the context, doesn't it?

Are you trying to convince the audience, or your opponent? If the audience, then being aggressive can work. If your opponent (if there is no audience, for example), then you had better be a little more conciliatory.

[General Zod]

It really depends on the context, doesn't it?

Are you trying to convince the audience, or your opponent? If the audience, then being aggressive can work. If your opponent (if there is no audience, for example), then you had better be a little more conciliatory.

Someone who's a hardline creationist typically won't be convinced anyways, so your best bet is to convince the audience and the fence sitters.

[Falkenhayn]

Nothing really noteworthy. Primarily they tried to argue that "miracles" was just as reasonable as objective evidence. The guy tried to "define" miracle as "something that doesn't happen all that often" rather than "something that flies in the face of the laws of physics". When pointed out that his definition was irrational, the response was, "according to your point of view".

I didn't point this out to them at the time but I probably should have said that they're getting their rationale from Star Wars.

Another guy tried the "you don't have evidence of every last step along the way, therefore its all a made up fairy tale and literal creationism is just as good." I explained that evolution may not have a flawless picture and some of the pieces are missing but thats still infinitely better than your "alternative". Evolution (and abiogenesis for that matter, since their big contention on this point was about organic molecules to self replicating DNA) was a jigsaw puzzle with some missing pieces. Creationism was an empty picture frame.

Their main thrust was that "evolutionists" are trained to see evidence one way while creationists are trained to see it another way. They fixated on the cambrian explosion as "proof of creationism" and my protests that it was the exception rather than the rule got brushed to the side.

One girl asked how such complexity could arrise by pure chance. I made an analogy about cars. Our society would fall apart without cars. We are incredibly dependent on cars. Yet just a little more than 100 years ago, our society didn't have any cars. By creationist "logic" our civilization must have been created in its present form by God.

There were other issues but those were the primary ones. Their insistance that evolution (read, everything from the big bang to the present) is taught as dogma and that creationism is simply just a different way of looking at the same evidence and reaching a different conclusion. I think I did a pretty good job at pointing out their logical fallacies but I doubt I convinced anyone. The discussion boiled down to a three against three.

From your recounting the debate, it looks like your opponents weren't attempting to refute your positions so much as equate your position with their own while maintaining a civility endearing to the audience. If that isn't an fine rhetorical tactic for manipulating a sympathetic crowd I don't know what is.

[Darth Servo]

Something tells me he already read Darth Servo's quote for some reason.

LOL!! I didn't know what you were talking about until I just noticed it was him I was responding to. Well I can see I'm really on the ball today. Geez.

Its ok. I just changed my avatar yesterday so its pretty easy to mistake me for someone else.

[Surlethe]

Basically, communicate that your goal is mutual understanding and not to embarass them by ripping their position to shreds, be tactful, and it wouldn't surprise me if you actually made them think about their dogma instead of mindlessly repeating it.

So in other words, do the exact OPPOSITE of what we have been trained to do here.

Yeah. Here, we have rules designed to enforce honesty and fair conduct and to elevate them above civility. If people don't want to behave like that, then they can get the fuck out. In real-life, no such rules exist, unfortunately, so the best way, I think, to ensure fair conduct is to be tactful. Of course, if you get fed up with perpetual dishonesty, etc., nothing's stopping you from shredding them verbally, but that won't change their minds.

[Darth Servo]

It really depends on the context, doesn't it?

Are you trying to convince the audience, or your opponent? If the audience, then being aggressive can work. If your opponent (if there is no audience, for example), then you had better be a little more conciliatory.

Someone who's a hardline creationist typically won't be convinced anyways, so your best bet is to convince the audience and the fence sitters.

We didn't have an audience. This was supposed to be the local campus fundie club's attempt to talk down evolution amongst themselves in "celebration" of Darwin day. There weren't more than a dozen people there and the first thing they did was watch a video of an evolution/creationism debate and four people left midway through the video. The funny thing is is that even in the taped live debate, the evolutionist kicked the creationist's ass across the stage, pointing out how he was lying about several issues. Yet the creationists still clung to their "champions point" about creationism and evolution being equally valid methods of looking at biology. Damn I wish I had remembered Mike's challenge about the pro-evolution person risking eternal hell fire by blaspheming God's name in every way imaginable while they "tempt" the laws of gravity by jumping off the nearest sky scraper. Or the Mark 16:18 challenge.

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

[Redleader34]

I have learned that the best way of dealing with the intelgent designer crowd is to point out the flawa in humaninty, and then ask if they belive that god is an idiot, since since he is all mighty and ominicent, why would he orignaly build all these flaws into his creations

[Darth Servo]

I have learned that the best way of dealing with the intelgent designer crowd is to point out the flawa in humaninty, and then ask if they belive that god is an idiot, since since he is all mighty and ominicent, why would he orignaly build all these flaws into his creations

Those are all "because of the fall of Adam". Yep, God screwed up our DNA, re-wired our eyes and our breathing passage all because one guy ate the apple.

[vargo]

The trick with debating fundies is to constantly be on the offensive and not give them a chance to attack your position, as they'll cling onto the slightest hole and poke at it until you get fed up. Especially emphasizing on the absurdity of some of their beliefs and stances. But yeah, never let them get on the offensive if it can be helped.

Another good tactic I've found is to be friendly about it. If you come off as an asshole, you'll persuade nobody, not the fundie (who may or may not be persuaded anyway) and not the audience (who are your chief target in a real-life debate). I've found that being friendly, making jokes, and in general seeming to try to understand their position and trying to get them to understand your position are very helpful in persuading and not just discovering the truth.

Basically, communicate that your goal is mutual understanding and not to embarass them by ripping their position to shreds, be tactful, and it wouldn't surprise me if you actually made them think about their dogma instead of mindlessly repeating it.

I also like to add, depending on who you are debating. Once you start killing them with kindness and completely annihilate their counter points. You will start to notice they become agitated and resort to ad-hominem attacks. I believe that some of them think that because you teach and except evolution and you might happen to be atheists. their whole idea about you gets thrown out the window. From their point of view they see Atheist/Evolutionist as mean, piss off, devil talking lying scum of the earth.... and when you come along and talk like someone they would listen to in church, they fall into a void of confusion and anger. Then their whole credibility falls apart.

[PainRack]

Let's not forget the old" I pray to God for you" method.

Sometimes, not being cruel works up to a certain limit. After the third round of bullshitting around the same topic and confrontational tactics, there really isn't any reason not to reply in kind.

[Darth Servo]

Let's not forget the old" I pray to God for you" method.

Sometimes, not being cruel works up to a certain limit. After the third round of bullshitting around the same topic and confrontational tactics, there really isn't any reason not to reply in kind.

You mean replying to the afore mentioned "tactic" with "and I'll think for you"?

[Wyrm]

Another guy tried the "you don't have evidence of every last step along the way, therefore its all a made up fairy tale and literal creationism is just as good." I explained that evolution may not have a flawless picture and some of the pieces are missing but thats still infinitely better than your "alternative". Evolution (and abiogenesis for that matter, since their big contention on this point was about organic molecules to self replicating DNA) was a jigsaw puzzle with some missing pieces. Creationism was an empty picture frame.

Probably a good time to pull out DW's "history vs theory" analogy of cars.

Their main thrust was that "evolutionists" are trained to see evidence one way while creationists are trained to see it another way.

Then why did the true scientists who happened to be creationists way back when start suspecting that the theory of special creation was wrong when the geological column started to be pieced together? And why was it Charles Darwin, who had trained to be a clergyman, write Origin?

They fixated on the cambrian explosion as "proof of creationism" and my protests that it was the exception rather than the rule got brushed to the side.

The cambrian explosion took place over millions of years. This is hardly a the "sudden creation" of life that your creationists take them to be.

One girl asked how such complexity could arrise by pure chance. I made an analogy about cars. Our society would fall apart without cars. We are incredibly dependent on cars. Yet just a little more than 100 years ago, our society didn't have any cars. By creationist "logic" our civilization must have been created in its present form by God.

Nice one. But I hope you addressed the "pure chance" bullshit.

[PainRack]

You mean replying to the afore mentioned "tactic" with "and I'll think for you"?

Errr, I meant that creaionists have another tactic..

Although I must admit, I wonder how your tactic will fare

[Enola Straight]

Creationism is based on Truth written in a Book.

Evolution is based on truth written in the very substance of creation itself.



Which evidence is stronger?

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I think a lot of Christian philosophy (apologies to any philosophers for the oxymoron) amounts to little more than asserting the Truth of the Book over the truth of reality because the words are capitalized.