One-liner proposal

[Darth Wong]

To combat the infamous "evolution is a theory, not a fact" one-liner, I recently came up with "To attack a scientific theory for not being a fact is like attacking a mathematical equation for not being a number."

What do you think? It's so hard to come up with snappy one-liners to combat the incredibly simplistic thinking of creationists. By nature, complex ideas are harder to express than simplistic thoughts, and this one sort of requires that one does in fact understand the importance of mathematical equations as opposed to numbers, which I'm not sure everyone does.

[General Zod]

I like retorting with "Gravity's just a theory too." Then sometimes throwing in a line about putting it to the test by jumping off a building. That seems to get a lot of them.

[Duckie]

From a cognitive perspective, I'd say "The Theory of Gravity is also a theory." While redundant, using [Theory of Gravity] or [Germ Theory] as a proper noun reinforces that there is in fact a thing called the Theory of Gravity. "Gravity is just a theory too" implies that Gravity, the physical phenominon, is theoretical in the layman sense, while the version I outlined implies that the scientific explanation of gravity is equally theoretical. It's a subtle distinction.

[Surlethe]

I think that's actually a pretty good analogy: a scientific theory is ultimately a description of a relationship among facts, just as an equation is a description of a relationship among numbers. There are some differences (i.e., it's not a perfect analogy) - for instance, a theory proposes a mechanism for the relationship, whereas the idea makes no sense for an equation - but that's beside the point you're trying to combat.

[Oskuro]

"To attack a scientific theory for not being a fact is like attacking a mathematical equation for not being a number."

Nah, your phrase is probably too complex for these types, they'll probably still be at "to attack a scientific theory" while you're back home having dinner and choosing a movie for the evening.

I think it'd be easier to reply with a "So is God" and have them shoot their own foot trying to prove you wrong.

[Eleas]

To combat the infamous "evolution is a theory, not a fact" one-liner, I recently came up with "To attack a scientific theory for not being a fact is like attacking a mathematical equation for not being a number."

What do you think?

I can't see it having any effect at all on the intended target. What you're trying to do is match them one-liner for one-liner. They offer a formulaic appeal to the gut, intended (I suppose) to give the person saying it a warm sense of superiority over them thar edumacated folks by virtue of his common sense and rugged individualism.

Now, an obvious non-sequitur like "evolution is just a theory" works so well with these people precisely because it is vacuous. To effectively counter vaguely stated stupidity with an analogy, you have to present a rebuttal that, to their impression, results in a crushing and viscerally satisfying defeat of your opponent. Otherwise, if someone didn't lose, no-one won.

I suspect your target is to present a scenario that the target instantly (emotionally) recognizes as analogous to his own, then draw an inescapable and ridiculous consequence of that which the target must admit is absurd and thus humiliating. Neither of these steps I can see working in this case. At its core, I suspect "evolution is just a theory" is so popular simply because it represents a blanket mockery of rules-based abstract thinking, and you can't really counter it with more abstraction. The old phrase about arguing with idiots seems apropos.

So it pains me to say this, but I think you might want to dumb down your analogies significantly if you want to make headway. Assuming, of course, the possibility of changing the opinions of people who nod their heads at such patent stupidity in the first place.

[Simon_Jester]

I think "so is gravity" is the way to go there. It's short enough to be a true one-liner (you can remember it all at once, no clause structure). It's a reasonably accurate analogy. It's as likely to work as anything else, I think.

I think that's actually a pretty good analogy: a scientific theory is ultimately a description of a relationship among facts, just as an equation is a description of a relationship among numbers. There are some differences (i.e., it's not a perfect analogy) - for instance, a theory proposes a mechanism for the relationship, whereas the idea makes no sense for an equation - but that's beside the point you're trying to combat.

What percentage of people the one-liner is aimed at will get the analogy, though? There's a strong negative correlation between disbelief in evolution and a clear understanding of how equations work.

[Darth Wong]

I think there's a middle group between the true imbeciles (against which no argument has weight) and people who are maybe not that bright but who are honestly trying to use logic. If nothing else, the analogy might confuse them to the point where they try to investigate further.

I agree that a lot of people who say "it's just a theory" are either liars or idiots and are thus beyond reaching with any argument or analogy, but I suspect that there are lot of people who try to occupy a middle ground and who, if not actually completely swayed by the "it's just a theory" argument, find it vaguely persuasive in the sense that it reduces the credibility of evolution, if not demolishing it.

[Darth Wong]

I like retorting with "Gravity's just a theory too."

They've all heard that one a million times. In their minds, it's not even remotely analogous because gravity is intuitively obvious, and evolution isn't. You have to remember that a lot of people "think with the gut". In order to bypass those kinds of reactions, one needs to hit them with something just cerebral enough to force them to engage that rarely used grey matter, but not so cerebral that it's completely beyond their mental capacities. Assuming they're making even the slightest effort to be honest, which I agree is only true for some of them.

Then sometimes throwing in a line about putting it to the test by jumping off a building. That seems to get a lot of them.

I've never seen it faze even one of them, not even for one second.

[General Zod]

I've never seen it faze even one of them, not even for one second.

Admittedly I used it in real life, where people don't have the luxury of a few hours to Google a snappy comeback. I can't really say I've had the chance to use it on the internet lately.

[Formless]

They've all heard that one a million times. In their minds, it's not even remotely analogous because gravity is intuitively obvious, and evolution isn't. You have to remember that a lot of people "think with the gut". In order to bypass those kinds of reactions, one needs to hit them with something just cerebral enough to force them to engage that rarely used grey matter, but not so cerebral that it's completely beyond their mental capacities. Assuming they're making even the slightest effort to be honest, which I agree is only true for some of them.

If this is the kind of person you want to get too, I think you may need a different approach entirely. The person you are describing sounds like the kind of person who argues to "win" rather than seeking the truth, and as such has tailored their strategy to do so in the quickest, most efficient manner possible i.e. a memorized one liner. By trying to throw it back in their face, you are only going to encourage this sort of blatantly closed minded approach to debate. Its tempting because it is a quick and dirty tactic, but only if you let them dictate the rules of engagement!

Frankly, I suspect that this may be one of those times where the best response is the null response; as in "if you can't tell the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, there is no point in further arguing with you." Or something to that effect; the idea is to remind them that this is so basic a concept as to shame them for not knowing it. Is it a perfect strategy? No, but then no strategy is, its entirely possible with any argument to think of a reason a particularly thick person might not be phased by it. That's why we call them thick.

[Samuel]

They've all heard that one a million times. In their minds, it's not even remotely analogous because gravity is intuitively obvious, and evolution isn't.

Should we use a non-intuitive field of science whose results they respect? Like nuclear physics? Or should we point out that their intuitive understanding of gravity is wrong (how many of them believe that all objects fall at the same rate?).

[Kuroneko]

I think it'd be easier to reply with a "So is God" and have them shoot their own foot trying to prove you wrong.

That would implicitly legitimize 'God' as a competing theory. One of the typical arguments is from the opposite side: showing that it takes 'faith' to believe in scientific theories, even more 'intuitive' ones like gravity (e.g., I've had a pastor argue to me that I have faith that ceiling won't fall down on me, etc.). Retorting with 'so is God' is for those purposes equivalent--instead of bringing down science to their level, it admits 'God' to science's level--which is just playing into their hands.

[Darth Wong]

If this is the kind of person you want to get too, I think you may need a different approach entirely. The person you are describing sounds like the kind of person who argues to "win" rather than seeking the truth, and as such has tailored their strategy to do so in the quickest, most efficient manner possible i.e. a memorized one liner.

As I've said many times before, when you're debating a creationist you aren't really arguing for his benefit. You're arguing for the benefit of fence-sitting spectators. The creationist himself is usually a liar and an idiot.

By trying to throw it back in their face, you are only going to encourage this sort of blatantly closed minded approach to debate. Its tempting because it is a quick and dirty tactic, but only if you let them dictate the rules of engagement!

Frankly, I suspect that this may be one of those times where the best response is the null response; as in "if you can't tell the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, there is no point in further arguing with you." Or something to that effect; the idea is to remind them that this is so basic a concept as to shame them for not knowing it. Is it a perfect strategy? No, but then no strategy is, its entirely possible with any argument to think of a reason a particularly thick person might not be phased by it. That's why we call them thick.

Yes, but in the eyes of spectators this approach will probably hurt you rather than helping you.

[Serafina]

If you really want to convince these people, don't do a "god vs science"-thing.
If you do that, they will immedeately side with god.

Because, to gut-thinkers, god is "real" and easy to grasp - unlike science.
Thus, it is important to stretch that these two do NOT contradict each other. If necessary, you need to point out that the Bible is not meant to be read literal, and thus can not be used to contradict science.

[Formless]

As I've said many times before, when you're debating a creationist you aren't really arguing for his benefit. You're arguing for the benefit of fence-sitting spectators. The creationist himself is usually a liar and an idiot.

Ah, sorry, I was under the impression that you intended to use this in arguments with the fence sitter themselves rather than against a hardcore idiot with the fence sitters as an audience. That does change the rhetorical situation significantly.

[Oskuro]

That would implicitly legitimize 'God' as a competing theory. One of the typical arguments is from the opposite side: showing that it takes 'faith' to believe in scientific theories, even more 'intuitive' ones like gravity (e.g., I've had a pastor argue to me that I have faith that ceiling won't fall down on me, etc.). Retorting with 'so is God' is for those purposes equivalent--instead of bringing down science to their level, it admits 'God' to science's level--which is just playing into their hands.

The idea was simply to get them on the defensive. I would guess that a lot of these gut thinkers spout their cathphrases without really expecting there ever being a comeback, by questioning something they consider absolute and widely accepted, they would then stumble to defend their position, or just lock up, wich is a win/win scenario in this situation.

Or, in other words, although I agree with your opinion, I doubt these types think enough about what they are saying to recognize the failings you point out, so just slap them with something challenging and be done with it.

On the other hand, I also guess they have enough pre-programmed retorts to any attacks on God.

[Samuel]

Thus, it is important to stretch that these two do NOT contradict each other. If necessary, you need to point out that the Bible is not meant to be read literal, and thus can not be used to contradict science.

This is known as the seperate worlds argument. It is perfect for our targeted audience- of course it is so much BS, but lets be honest- if rational argumentation worked on them we wouldn't have to resort to lying.

[mr friendly guy]

How about if evolution if "just" a theory, then the Bible is just a fairytale. You may want to add a boring one at that given two whole chapters devoted to Genealogies. A layman might think a theory in science means "good guess", but I think they will interpret a good guess as superior to a fairytale any day of the week.

[madd0ct0r]

"Evolution is a theory, not a fact."

"Why wouldn't God use it?"

[Themightytom]

I think that's actually a pretty good analogy: a scientific theory is ultimately a description of a relationship among facts, just as an equation is a description of a relationship among numbers. There are some differences (i.e., it's not a perfect analogy) - for instance, a theory proposes a mechanism for the relationship, whereas the idea makes no sense for an equation - but that's beside the point you're trying to combat.

So...
If a theory is a relationship between facts, than creationism is a shotgun wedding.

[ray245]

The one time I saw someone using that one-liner, I simply called him and idiot and forcing him to explain to everyone he is not an idiot.

[Samuel]

The one time I saw someone using that one-liner, I simply called him and idiot and forcing him to explain to everyone he is not an idiot.

While stating that any idiot can sprout one liners does have a certain charm I don't think we can force them to back up their statement. On the bright side if they don't it helps show they don't have credibility. It won't help win an argument, but it will show to the audience that they don't know what they are talking about.

[Themightytom]

The one time I saw someone using that one-liner, I simply called him and idiot and forcing him to explain to everyone he is not an idiot.

....
Ah... you almost HAVE to be addressing one of the posts before mine but just in case you actually thought MY one liner was somehow subtle and unclear

Facts that have a healthy relationship continue to associate becoming a theory. Facts that do NOT neccesarily work together but spawn an illegitimate theory in the eyes of society are forced to remain associated for the purposes of making the theory retain legitimacy. The church is holding the shotgun Ray, the church is holding the shotgun!!

Also added valued is the ironic reference to the hypocracy of a shotgun wedding perpetrated by the church. as opposed to merely administrated.

[ray245]

The one time I saw someone using that one-liner, I simply called him and idiot and forcing him to explain to everyone he is not an idiot.

....
Ah... you almost HAVE to be addressing one of the posts before mine but just in case you actually thought MY one liner was somehow subtle and unclear

Facts that have a healthy relationship continue to associate becoming a theory. Facts that do NOT neccesarily work together but spawn an illegitimate theory in the eyes of society are forced to remain associated for the purposes of making the theory retain legitimacy. The church is holding the shotgun Ray, the church is holding the shotgun!!

Also added valued is the ironic reference to the hypocracy of a shotgun wedding perpetrated by the church. as opposed to merely administrated.

I'm referring to the one liner "Evolution is just a theory".