Quetzal

Hi again, Stabby. Interesting point. I'd have to say there are probably numerous reasons why people get involved in Evo/Cre arguments/debates/discussions - probably as many reasons or combinations as there are "debaters". A lot of the time I find myself involved simply because I can't stand seeing science misused or misinterpreted. I also find the debates fascinating because a) I have been forced to seriously examine the evidence for something that I had more or less taken for granted (i.e., evolution and natural selection) and b) I love learning (there are literally dozens of people on this board, for ex, who have in-depth knowledge on every subject from physics and quantum theory to biology and geology). A lot of people, of course, simply enjoy the repartee.

I think anyone who enters one of these discussions with the expectation that they will be able to "convert" their opposite number is deluding themselves. IMO, the value of a debate format lies in presenting evidence during the argument that might help the "uninvolved" make a decision. IOW, convert the (supposed) "hidden audience".

I sort of doubt that there is anyone who enteres one of these discussions, at least on the Internet, whose position is not already entrenched. OTOH, there ARE people who come to a site like this and say something along the lines of: "I don't know. What evidence do you have to support your position?" without preconception. They might have a bias one way or the other, but don't barge in saying "You're wrong." These are the kind of people I like to talk to, for instance. I guess, in a sense, this approach may be the only way of "communication" available.

Depends on intent: if someone is trying to overthrow a century and a half of scientific thought and research, they bloody well better have a better, well-documented and -reasoned paradigm. Scientists CAN be convinced (although the evidence needs to be pretty strong). Science is not infallible, and makes no claim to Truth (tm).

OTOH, what irritates most people is when someone who literally hasn't got the first clue, waltzes in and proclaims the person is utterly wrong without being able to back up the claim, or even understand the response. Statements like, "I don't pretend to know anything about biology, geology, paleontology, genetics, microbiology, etc, but I know evolution is false." drive most of us out of our skulls. That isn't communication - or even evidence of a desire for communication - either.

I'm curious as to where you're going with this (and where you're coming from). Would you care to elaborate the reason(s) behind your questions?

Stabby-

The male based antagonistic format of this debate: Evolution vs. Creationism, does not work.

Scientific ignorance hurts society. I must assume, that these debates are looking to promote understanding of secular and evolutionary methods; that these debates want to engender a better world.

Yet, the antagonistic model, fails to do this. Or rather, it is ineffective. It has become an inclusive group. The members of this group are very educated and very good at communicating. Yet they focus this education and communictive skill as antagonists, they blast the oppostition, pat themselves on the back and wait for the next "Victim."

The main goal: Education of the masses, Is taken to occur on faith that "lurkers" exist and that they will learn and feel welcome.

I'm going on the assumption that this group here can see past the antagonistic model to a more functional methodology.

Stabby-----------

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Stabby- ]</p>

BLoggins02

Stabby, your argument, though valid, has the same flaw as those people who go around insisting the world would be a better place if people would just "get along."

Unbridaled idealism in a very UNideal world is more than just wishfull thinking, it can be dangerous. For example, if you're so sure that every human is, by their nature, good, then you will try in vain to appeal to someone's "inner goodness" while they slay you with a knife.

In some circumstances, the only way to affect change is to use methods that aren't conducive to your end goal. Yes, we would like people to be educated about the facts and evidence before they make a decision on the subject. Yes, we would like people (on BOTH sides!) to acknowledge an invalid argument when it has been pointed out to them, but it doesn't work that way. The reason is that fundamentalists don't work that way.

Fundamentalist types, by their nature, appeal to emotion, not logic. I was once a blossoming fundamentalist christian. Nothing was logical, everything was either warm and fuzzy, or evil and harsh.

When your opponent chooses to be antagonistic to your beliefs based almost solely on emotion, there really is no choice bu to be antagonistic in return (so maybe you can conjure up a little cognitive dissonance) or just give up.

It's easy to give up, but it isn't right at all. What we are talking about here is far more consequential than a group of people having ridiculous opinions. The heart of the issue is EDUCATION. No one is saying that there should not be places where you can learn about creationism, but creationism does NOT belong in a secular institution, thinly disguised as some quasi-scientific theory called "Intelligent Design"; especially when it can be demonstrated that creationism resebles science just about as closely as a fruit fly resembles the Mona Lisa.

The central issue is education because once children are exposed to the idea that you should take your beliefs and views of the world only as they are fed to you, it is very difficult later on for them to think independently.

OTOH, if you can come up with a way to further the argument without being so antagonistic, while AT THE SAME TIME having some sort of influence on the other side (not just "conversion", but maybe just that little feeling in your head that says "hmm, this makes more sense than what I was told, I wonder what else does") then you will have something indeed.

Stabby-

I'm not sure i agree with this Either/or mentality.

If a mental patient, insists on believe something incorrect, and has the intent on acting on those beliefs, there is a set psychological method for dealing with them.

I understand it makes it difficult when a creationist claims to be using science to prove YEC. But, the psychological metaphor still holds.

Although, i'm not suggesting Creationists are mental patients. I think some psychological methodology could be useful here. Psych ward workers know you can't get too antagonistic and fall into the fantasy of the patient.

What psychological tools, which are non-Antagonistic, could help in the education of Creationists?

Are there any congnitive scientist, or psychologist out there with some ideas??

Have i proven that the status quo (Antagonistic model) does not work regarding Evolution/creationism?

Stabby-------

BLoggins02

Actuality, now that you've pointed it out to me as such, neither do I, since I am usually the first to point out either/or fallacies to my friends.

Well, so much for being perfect (;-)), so let me redefine my thinking. I'm not going to copout and say that "here, this is what I REALLY meant". No, I think it's good to admit when your reasoning has been shown to be fallacious.

I think instead of antagonism, I should say "emotion". I dislike the use of emotion in arguments, as I believe it tends to cloud the issue; but when your opponent is using emotion as the bases of his/her position, it may be appropriate to respond in kind. Note that most psychological methods of attack will have an emotional bend, more so then saying "Look, you're saying p-&gt;q, q, -| p. That's affirming the consequent. It's a logical fallacy, and has no place in debate." While that might be true, it doesn't seem to sway most creationists away from their arguments, so maybe other, less systematic approaches are in order.

But that's just my opinion, and I'm not much of a debator

Asha'man

Actually, Stabby, I think you are on the right track here.

The fully indoctrinated creationists are beyond logic and evidence, they are perfectly willing to argue that 1=2 because the bible says so. Debates must continue, because allowing such nonsense to go unanswered could be misinterpreted as admission that it is true. But we aren’t really changing the balance of belief here. As you said, the status quo of antagonism isn’t really working.

I think the first answer is education. But it needs to be with children, before they are indoctrinated into the cult. We need more science in schools, and earlier. We need to push skepticism and logical thinking as early as possible. Just like with smoking, prevention is the key.

As for curing those already afflicted, I don’t think we (atheists) have a chance. The only person who can “cure” a YEC creationist is a more liberal Christian. The creationist must be convinced that science and reason don’t have to be completely ignored, that there is a middle ground. That will give science and reason a foothold within the psyche. Once that foothold is established, skepticism and doubt has a chance to grow.

Stabby-

I agree. Education is a nice preventative measure(On a side note, i think the new School voucher system will really hurt accurate scientific education).

Still, i can't help but think there is some way to "process" the afflicted. I'm begining to realize that we can't do away with the Antagonistic model. Yet, there must be something we can do-- append each post with a psychological processing of some sort-- to disassociate the creationist's sense of self from their skewed world view.

Does that sound Achievable?

Stabby-----

Icky

Oh, but we do. I have seen it happen on several occasions. But...But...A big but...Only when the creationist that we were arguing with was clearly in possession of a good intelect.

The squish-headed fundy may be beyond hope, but an intelligent person CAN be reasoned with and CAN be persuaded to discard his faith in fairy tales. And I'm not talking "liberal" Christians here. I'm talking "big hair-school prayer" Christians.

We can get to them. But it takes patience and respectful argument.

Theophage

So it would seem that the antagonistic model of debate does fail to educate simply because that is not its purpose. The purpose of such debate, as Asha'man stated, is to confront wrongheaded ideas so that they don't go unanswered. It would be bad if we didn't do this.

But as he also stated, we need better education in addition; education that is not based on the antagonistic principle.

The right tool for the right job, people...

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

echidna

FWIW, I have an mechanical engineering background and what I’d consider to be a healthy degree of skepticism (although not as skeptical as some).

One of my many weaknesses is biology. Basic chemistry I can grasp, but my genetics is well below par.

So while YEC is an easy position to debunk, I will confess that for many years I had a soft spot for Intelligent Design. I only needed to see something and be amazed at the performance of my eyes (even with their astigmatism). Yes, while I accept it, I still find Evolution counter-intuitive.

I still find it a natural miracle that our simple physical laws (is anyone brave enough to claim QM is not counter-intuitive ?) can give rise to Foccacias and E-Type Jaguars. I’d have to question anyone who simply accepted all this as quite ordinary, without at least a slight sense of wonder.

There are few physical phenomena whose macro behaviour is easily predictable from their micro behaviour, so while one may struggle to understand the combinations of acid-base pairs for instance, it’s still a long long chain of events to driving a golf ball 200 yards down the fairway.

Interestingly the latest SciAm discusses "exaptation" instead of "adaptation", the reminder that genetic mutations are not designed for a purpose, but are indeed random until the being finds a use for them (or not), and then potentially finds other uses for them. The very word "adapt" scientifically suggests that the change is &lt;towards&gt; something.

In a sense our science language and teaching is obsessed with telling us the biological purposes of things. Not often enough are we reminded how speculative these purposes are. Hardly any wonder that we then search for the Designer.