Oolon Colluphid

I suppose radio talk shows are different, but Dawkins says he makes it a rule never to engage creationists in debate, since to do so is to give the public the impression that there’s some sort of doubt over evolution -- that there is a debate to be had, and that creationists are arguing on an equal footing and actually have a case to put. He says they should not be given the apparent kudos of so appearing.

Cheers, Oolon

bluefugue

But, of course, refusing to debate creationists can give the impression that scientists are scared of something.

Oolon Colluphid

Of course. It’s a lose-lose situation: you either have to give voice to their nonsense or look like you’re hiding something. And if you do debate them, it will inevitably be on their terms, since creationism is about rhetoric not evidence, and the home of rhetoric is the debate, not the peer-reviewed journal, the lab and the fossil bed. You are inevitably open to the Dopeler Effect (where stupid things seem smarter if they come at you quickly). One little snide point from the cretinist could take up your whole time allocation, because before you counter a point, you’ve got to explain the science behind it, usually to a scientifically unsophisticated audience.

This is, of course, why scientific ideas aren't decided by popular referendum.

Oolon

bluefugue

Yet.

Coragyps

Don't we wish! California's Proposition 65 decided by popular vote which chemicals are "known to the State of California to cause cancer" based on some list someone put together 20+ years ago. I hope that there is some mechanism for review; I don't know that much about it. I do know that one of the best "boosters" for laundry detergents, universally used in Europe, isn't used in the US because it runs afoul of Prop 65 and would have to be sold everywhere but California.

John Solum

I agree with you, but I wonder what you think the most effective way for scientists to oppose creationism is. Creationists appeal to the general public, and I think their appeals work so well because there isn't enough scientific opposition that's geared for the general public. I think this is why so many bills that promote one form of creationism or another are proposed (for example the recent bill in Ohio). Creationism-friendly pieces of legislation are pretty common. One thing I'd like to see is more scientifically literate members of school boards.

Coragyps

John - That's something I'd like to see as well, even with my kids off to college. But I fear getting more scientifically literate school board members might mean ME. I should force myself to be that much of a citizen, too, but I'm not sure I could tolerate the calls about how "The coach won't play my son at quarterback!" And getting elected here in Fundyland might take a good-sized dose of discretion, as well. Maybe I should run next election - would a bunch of you heathens move out here to the desert long enough to vote for me?

NialScorva

Personally, I'm a fan of complete apathy except when they get in your way, and then utterly smakking them down without getting even slightly emotional about it. Destroy their arguments, but do it in a way that it's apparent that you have so little respect for them that it should be unnecessary.

Oolon Colluphid

That seems to be how Dawkins handles it. But then, He's not faced with it here in Britain as often as you poor buggers are in the States...

Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Hi John

As my mum used to say, God knows, and he isn't telling. I suppose all they can do is carry on as now, by ignoring it till it gets in the way. Beyond that, it's about better science education for everyone.

Ultimately, what's needed is to get sceptical thinking and science decently taught, so people can make informed judgements themselves. This would be useful for judging anything, from MMR vaccination to alien abductions.

I'd also like to see one lesson, maybe the final or first one, of any biology course covering the TO five major misconceptions about evolution, even if only roughly, so kids can spot the arguments when they encounter them -- sow the seeds of doubt ahead of time. They may not be able to counter the claims themselves, but at least they'd have seen them before and be wary of them.

But even so, some or even most of us here have trouble refuting every little cretinist bit of propaganda off the tops of our heads, and not everyone wants to be a professor of evolutionary biology. Even if they did, we'd also have to teach debating skills too, or at least how to spot the rhetoric amongst the alleged facts.

Into the future, I guess the web could help. It is already a major source of info for school projects; what worries me is the huge number of creationist sites that turn up at any search. The more proper science and refutations of their nonsence we collectively put out there, the better the chance that we can save some kids from making disastrous choices.

Oolon