Bubba

After seeing a creationist decline debate here I'm wondering-

Why are so few creationists willing to enter into rational debate? BTW, I'm not taling about little skirmishes in places like Christian Forums, I mean formal one on one or two on two debate.

In Darwin

Bubba

lpetrich

Creationists like spoken debates, where they can emit a lot of male-bovine excrement and make their opponents look silly trying to respond to it in a limited amount of time.

However, they are much more averse to written debates, like the current Thomas-ReMine debate. Their opponents get much more time to respond, enabling them to compose careful rebuttals. Which can make the creationists look totally silly.

tgamble

Creationists don't like written debates simply because it's harder to ramble on about anything and everything and thus make it difficult for the science side to respond. In a written debate, it's a lot harder to blather on about thermodynamics when asked about transitional forms!

Camaban

also, in this, you won't miss one point which will have them crowing and saying you don't know the answer to (therefore goddidit)

each point can be picked apart individually, and nothing of what was said will be forgotten, so nothing will be missed.

Bubba

This is why I wanted to get a good formal debate going between an IDer and someone from here at Infidels. I think that we could do a lot of good by demonstrating openly just how bad IDism (Dembski, Johnson et al) really is.

Bubba

Camaban

pity they never do.

you'd think that if they were right, they wouldn't be against debating on any ground (seeing as their lot also knows the theatrical tricks of the trade)

I'm also waiting for a decent debate on why the bible is right, instead of evolution wrong.

(But I'm being ignored on JCSM, and on every other board I try, they just try and twist it round, then go somewhere else, and I just can't hack going back to theologyonline... at least on JCSM, the administrator has SOME intellectual honesty (and if hammered enough, will admit to a mistake, though if anyone feels like mosying over and trying to get more details on his opinions if the "pesky leap second" author continues to use it as evidence despite being proven wrong, and not giving a solid answer as to why he's right, go right ahead)

and the other forums are just.... either dead, or faschistly moderated.

very sad state of affairs in general. (I sometimes wish there was a point or two they were right on, so they wouldn't be so afraid of a one-on-one debate)

TerryTryon

Creationists do not debate because they are not scientists. It is one thing to stand before a friendly audience and mock and ridicule your opponent. It is another thing to spend time in the library, actually tracking down the literature, or working in the field or laboratory. In science, and in scientific debates. one has to support one's arguments and let that support be open to critical examination. On a dais, the quality of critical thinking is that of the audience, not one's peers. That lowers the standard to a level creationists can compete in. If creationists really had anything worthwhile to say about science, they would conduct their debate in peer reviewed journals, where true scientific debate occurs.

Principia

I disagree. The appearance of a debate in which there is a one-on-one face off is that there are actually 2 equal sides, each with its own merits. But, in the world of IDiots/Creationists/Raelians vs. the rest of the scientific community, this 1:1 ratio is far from illusory. If an IDiot wants to debate here at Infidel, we ought to reserve the right to send up at least two representatives from each of the relevant disciplines (e.g. evolutionary biology, computer science, geology, molecular biology, etc.).

Consider the same point from the POV of the IDiot: But, there is no symmetry in this argument. In fact, the IDiot has everything to gain from such encounters -- where every little "win" can be spun into a tale of David v. Goliath. It is the IDer's burden of proof to show themselves in a good light, and not for us to dig them out of their own holes.

Clutch

The creationist fondness for oral debate and terror of written debate also has to do with purely visual aspects, as a few people have observed over the years. One person on each side of a stage is a powerful indication of even balance -- as if there is nothing to choose between the two. Which is, in the first instance, all the creationists want -- an excuse to call it a draw.

The oral format also gives the audience no opportunity to follow up the blizzard of references, dropped names and mined quotes. Once these are written out, especially on the Net, it's easy as pie to discover that the "experts" have doctorates in Nutrition Studies, their diplomas written out on the back of coffee-shop serviettes, and have been comprehensively debunked a thousand times.