Upcoming Evolution Debate with brother

[SAMAS]

While I normally tend to stay out of theologic discussions with by older brother, who's a borderline fundie, tonight he told me that for a school project, he was writing a paper on why evolution is not scientific.

So now I must gird my loins for battle, and test his thesis.

Any advice?

[Joe]

While I normally tend to stay out of theologic discussions with by older brother, who's a borderline fundie, tonight he told me that for a school project, he was writing a paper on why evolution is not scientific.

So now I must gird my loins for battle, and test his thesis.

Any advice?

Ask him to explain how creationism/ID is scientific. Make him give examples. Evolution is a fact, just point him to any of the various scientific data, observation, and experimentation relating to evolution.

[Superman]

His entire premise is fallacious. He must have a pretty screwed up definition of the word "science." Don't let him get away with his straw man arguments.

This is an age old fundie trick, by the way. They have been trying to claim that, since it is not directly observable, it cannot be science since the Scopes Trial.

Biologists do not have to BELIEVE that there are no transitional fossils; we can examine them in hundreds of museums around the world, and we make new discoveries all the time. Scientists do not have to BELIEVE that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old; we can test the age of the Earth, Moonm and meteoric rocks very accurately. We do not have to BELIEVE that protocells can be easily created from simple chemicals ion the laboratory; we can repeat the experiements, with comparable results. We can create artificial species of plants and animals by applying selection, and we can observe natural speciation in action. That is the big difference between science and religion. Science exists because of evidence, whereas religion exists upon faith-and, in the case of religious fundamentalism and creationism, in SPITE of the evidence.

[Alyrium Denryle]

show him examples of the fossil record

[Superman]

Oh, I almost forgot: First ask him what "science" means and then point out that the real process of scientific method is a rigorous process by which one seeks to gain new knowledge or explain natural phenomena on the basis of observation, statement of a problem, formation of an hypothesis, experimentation or prediction to test the hypothesis, and, eventually, formation of a theory.

Science is a system of recognizing patterns, it is knowledge through observation and it is a way in which to evaluate claims. Despite this, fundies still try to make straw mans and attack them.

Please tell your brother that "theories" and "hypotheses" are NOT the same thing. Fundies just cannot seem to get that through their moronic heads.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Ask him how new superbugs are being created through overuse of drugs and antibiotics.

That alone will stump him unless God is actively making bacteria smarter or maybe they're Borg bacteria that adapt to all the crap they get.

[Superman]

I have tried that one. Fundies usually just say something stupid like, "MICRO evolution is true, but MACRO cannot be." That's probably what he will say.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I have tried that one. Fundies usually just say something stupid like, "MICRO evolution is true, but MACRO cannot be." That's probably what he will say.

I know, I love it, cumulative effects are an unknown phenomenon to fundies.

It's like the people that say a Sea Gull can fly but a 747 can't.

[Exonerate]

When he responds speciation has never been observed, he's wrong... Drosophila has been obeserved to speciate, as have other insects, species with fast reproduction rates...

[Queeb Salaron]

Ask him to fucking explain dinosaurs. You figure that with archeological proof that the bastards existed millions of years ago, that the bible might at least MENTION the fuckers. But no. The bible goes back about, what, 6000 years at last count? Ask him to explain 2 million-year old fossils. And if he can do that, backed with FACT, then I'll become a fundie.

[Cromag]

While I normally tend to stay out of theologic discussions with by older brother, who's a borderline fundie, tonight he told me that for a school project, he was writing a paper on why evolution is not scientific.

So now I must gird my loins for battle, and test his thesis.

Any advice?

Yes, get an electronic copy, post it here and let your fellow denizens help you tear it apart.

[Darth Wong]

Keep it simple: demand that he define the scientific method and show how it applies to examples such as nuclear fusion in the Sun. Point out that he cannot possibly state that something is unscientific if he doesn't know what "scientific" means. WHEN he defines science incorrectly, you have him.

[Durandal]

Ask him to define the difference between a scientific theory and law. I guarantee you he'll get it completely wrong.

[Johonebesus]

You must teach him what science really says and how it really works. Explain to him that the word "theory" does not mean quite the same thing to a scientist as it does to a layman (point out that in biology he will study cell theory, yet no-one questions whether or not the body is made of cells). Explain to him the difference between a closed and open system, how the earth is an open system but the solar system is a (relatively) closed system (a good example is a box with a flashlight and a glow-in-the-dark ball). Use wordplay to show him that some of his creationist arguments are just rhetoric, such as the insistence that there are no transitional fossils (creationists claim that archæopteryx is its own species that just happens to have traits of both dinosaurs and birds, but that is exactly what a transitional species is, besides which every species constantly evolves, so all are transitional). Point out that "half formed" structures either served other purposes, such as mammalian ear bones which were once less efficient but still useful, and before that were jaw bones that were able to transmit some vibrations to the ear, or describe the several steps in the evolution of the eye, from a spot of light sensitive cells to a recessed pit to a deep pit to a pit with a protective film to a pit with a lens. Address whatever specific points he makes directly and specifically.

Of course, many people don't like to argue, and are incapable of real logic. I have a friend I am working on. I asked her recently if she could accept that dogs and wolves have a common ancestor. She said, "of course." I asked her if she could accept that wolves and coyotes have a common ancestor: "sure." I asked her if wolves and foxes could have a common ancestor, "yes." I asked her if wolves and bears could share an ancestor, "maybe." I asked her if wolves and cats could share an ancestor, "well, possibly." I asked her if chimpanzees and humans could share an ancestor, "no!" Some people are going to believe what they believe no matter what, and about all you can hope to do is chip away at their confidence bit by bit so that they end up exchanging faith in the Bible for faith in science. It's not ideal, but some people are really incapable of thinking for themselves rationally and critically.

[Trytostaydead]

While I normally tend to stay out of theologic discussions with by older brother, who's a borderline fundie, tonight he told me that for a school project, he was writing a paper on why evolution is not scientific.

So now I must gird my loins for battle, and test his thesis.

Any advice?

If you want to argue pro for evolution, ignore the phylogenies and physical observations. I'm not joking. Probably the most scientific evidence for evolution is molecular testing. It's a relatively new field, but so far it's just blowing a lot of the old theories out of the water.

[UltraViolence83]

Just ask him why chimps have over 98% of comparable/identical DNA to humans. Ask him why dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, yet are not in the Bible.

If he pulls out any of that Young-Earth shit, just shake your head and walk away, for he is incorrigible. Try to debate him instead, he'll pull a "Darkstar" and repeatedly annoy you until you give up and he considers himself the winner.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Try and hammer the point home that science and scientists DON'T tell the public what they want or don't want to hear. They have no ulterior motive, nothing to gain from disproving the Bible or showing that we can't travel FTL, they are simply Nature's observers who experiment and try to expplain the world around them. Unlike Biblical "scientists" who try every trick in the book to bend the laws of science to accept Intelligent Design, Young Earth and variable speed of light limits to justify the Bible as a form of education to the masses on the world and not just viewpoints long gone.

The ones who oppose science are scared that their world isn't like they saw it and that the scientists are out to actively fault them on every point. So they retaliate by making up their own science observations when all we're doing is telling them how the Universe is.

On second thoughts, just punch him and say he's stupid.

[haas mark]

The only thing I could say is this.. The Bible creates in accordance with evolution (with the exceptions of microbes and dinosaurs). The only thing to point out would be the seven days thing. Dunno.

[Zoink]

Any discussion about evolution will invariably boil down to the argument that:

Evolution is a theory, meaning it a guess. A theory is the opposite of fact.

To which the following references are usefull:


Noted paleoanthropologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould reminds us that in science 'fact' can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (Gould 1983). However, facts and theories are different things, notes Gould, "not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."



In Karl Popper's words: "Theories are nets cast to catch what we call 'the world': to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer."

[Darth Gojira]

While I normally tend to stay out of theologic discussions with by older brother, who's a borderline fundie, tonight he told me that for a school project, he was writing a paper on why evolution is not scientific.

So now I must gird my loins for battle, and test his thesis.

Any advice?

Explain to him the scientific method, and may the force be with you....

[Andrew J.]

Take a LOT of aspirin with you. You'll probably have an enormous headache afterward...

[Durandal]

The only thing I could say is this.. The Bible creates in accordance with evolution (with the exceptions of microbes and dinosaurs). The only thing to point out would be the seven days thing. Dunno.

And the stars coming after the planets, the sun and moon being created at the same time, et cetera ...

[Darth Wong]

The only thing I could say is this.. The Bible creates in accordance with evolution (with the exceptions of microbes and dinosaurs). The only thing to point out would be the seven days thing. Dunno.

And the stars coming after the planets, the sun and moon being created at the same time, et cetera ...

Not to mention the fucked-up ratios; according to the real timeline, the first two thirds of this universe's history took place before Earth existed. Apply that ratio to the Biblical 7 days and the problem will be obvious

[SyntaxVorlon]

Whenever you hear a creationist or theist verging on fundie, ALWAYS, always pull out the bible of literalists, the Dictionary, for quick posting to forums I suggest dictionary.com(very useful on the aclu forum).
Plunk it down in front of him and point out the meanings of a few key words that are always argued upon:
Theory
Fact
Science
Belief
Guess/Hypothesis

(in about that order)

Then should he try to wiggle out if it using logical fallacies. Bring him back to the definitions.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The only thing I could say is this.. The Bible creates in accordance with evolution (with the exceptions of microbes and dinosaurs). The only thing to point out would be the seven days thing. Dunno.

And the stars coming after the planets, the sun and moon being created at the same time, et cetera ...

Not to mention the fucked-up ratios; according to the real timeline, the first two thirds of this universe's history took place before Earth existed. Apply that ratio to the Biblical 7 days and the problem will be obvious

I love the Biblical days fallacy, hey kids, looks like Thursday is 2.3 billion years longer than Friday and I can't do jack on Saturday as it's 10 minutes long and on Sunday God rested and forgot to make that day have any length.