Xeluan

Arising from frustration at tryng to debate IDers/Creationist in other forums I've come to term the whole debating style as one long "I Know You Are But What Am I" argument (and with the intellectual maturity to match).

For example, ask for an example of evidence of ID and the replies will question what evidence there is for ToE. Ask exactly what the theory of ID is and then you sidetracked by a discussion of what ToE is. One could argue that the above are characterzations of ID/creationist postions but this form of discussion is so damn common.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Xeluan

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Xeluan ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

Actually this is NOT an unreasonable thing for ID people to do. If we ask for evidence for ID or to provide a theory of ID, or just what is ID then it perfectly reasonable thing for the ID people to ask the same questions for evolution.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The real point should that there is evidence for evolution, but not for ID; that there are theories of evolution but no theory of ID; that evolution provides clear questions and explanations that can be taken and applied to real research programs while ID cannot, etc.

Vampyric

I don't see why if someone asks you to give an explanation of your beliefs you require an explanation of another belief.

I mean if I asked a christian what they believe, I shouldn't need to define Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. etc. before they tell me that they believe Jesus was god etc.

Xeluan

I agree. The problem is when the answer to the question "What is the evidence for ID?" is "Well, what is the evidence for evolution?" repeated ad nauseum.

If asked I'll explain why I regard ToE as the best explanation for life on Earth. I would regard answering that question with "What is the evidence for ID?" avoiding the issue.

Xeluan

mibby529

Hell, the burden of proof should be on the IDers. History books use the Bible as the main source for Mideastern history. Of course, history books use the Book of Mormon and missionary accounts as their main source for pre-Columbian history.

Why do they do this? Because scientists and historians don't make good bargainers, while priests have plenty of experience selling ppl bullshit.

Vorkosigan

mibby, this just isn't true. Why do you keep making this claim?

Defiant Heretic

It is reasonable for IDist to ask that you define evolution. Just don't let them use it as a diversionary tactic. Have a quick definition ready in case they ask for it , but make them define their position before you enter into a discussion of creationism vs. evolution.

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001229&p=2" target="_blank">Here's an explanation of evolution</a> I posted in another thread. You can use it as a quick definition if an IDist ask for one.

Albion

I think it's helpful to have some response ready, but it's a standard creationist tactic to always try and turn the debtae back into dissecting the inadequacies of evolution, and I think you just have to be firm.

I really don't see why, since the usual argument is whether to start teaching creationism in class, not whather to stop teaching evolution, debates always seem to concentrate on the inadequacies of evolution rather than the adequacies of creationism. Somehow everybody seems to fall for it, and the creationist is left not having to defend his position. It's about time people heard the claims about vegetarian lions and practically instantanous mountain building and all the rest of it, or the claims about irreducible complexity and how you can scientifically prove the existence of God.

NialScorva

I don't know, I've gotten into some arguments where a creationist will make a pair of assertions such as:

1. Evolution is false.
2. Creationism should be taught in it's place.


99% of the time, it's far more important to me to address the second point rather than the first. Usually it's worth doing a post glancing over the first point, then moving on to challenging their reasoning for the second, but I think it's bad form to debate the former for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that they reject *anything* that will contradict their assumptions for the first. When you're challanging *their* assertions about creationism, defending evolution is a red herring.

Defiant Heretic

That's why I like using the definition I refered to in my other post. If they have to attack the general theory of evolution, instead of making obscure references to moon dust and Mt. St. Helens, they don't have any ground to stand on for their attacks, and it gives you an opportunity to attack their position without appearing to dodge their questions.