This story is archived
Don't 'debate' creationists! »
Posted by: RickyDawkins 2 years, 4 months agoToday the United States is being confronted with large numbers of scientifically ignorant, politically active Christians who are locked into ultra-religious, anti-scientific views and who want to force these views on others through our elected officials, our courts, and our schools. Creationists can generate lies more quickly than you can refute.
Read Full Story at scienceblogs.com »
Submitted By:
RickyDawkins
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 800
-
RickyDawkins
July 8, 2007, 2:58 p.m.A scientist, Charles L. Rulon, debated an ID creationist, and here are the opening remarks he gave to justify joining in the debate.
**It pits oratory against science in a venue where you'll be judged on your rhetoric.
**It gives publicity to creationists.
**Creationists can generate more lies more quickly than you can refute.
**Debates give equal time to two sides, falsely elevating creationist trivia to equality with scientific substance.
**The debates are often used to recruit members to fundamentalist Christian organizations.
-
RickyDawkins
July 8, 2007, 3:16 p.m."Help them find non-scientists. If there is some insistence on that horrible 'debate' format, suggest that they get a speaker who can handle it masterfully. Ask a lawyer. Seriously. There are all kinds of case law on the subject of creationism in the schools, and the Dover case alone is entertaining and instructive. There are great possibilities in that story: I'd like to see a 'debate' in a church where a lawyer explains how thoroughly Buckingham screwed the pooch in that case by recruiting his church to donate creationist propaganda to the public school.
Encourage them to get wide local support. There's a strange attitude that the best response is to bring in a single hired gun to defeat the creationist bad guy. Far better is to tap into local resources and get a broad base of opposition that will also be there next time one of these clowns rolls into town."
-
retbg
July 8, 2007, 3:17 p.m.Advice from my old Scottish Grandmother: Never get into a mud fight with pigs - the pigs love it!
Arguing with a fundamentalist type (of whatever faith) about anything is futile, time wasting, accomplishes nothing but heating up the immediate surroundings with a lot of hot air and BS (and Al will not like that). You get frustrated at their ignorance and they get to feel superior because they KNOW they are going to Heaven and you are going to Hell. I'll see you down there, I'll be on the 8th level.
-
bigeric
July 8, 2007, 4:12 p.m.While some Christians may be "scientifically ignorant", not all of us are ignorant dults. I suppose you're going to tell me that the "word" of the scientific community is your gospel and whatever current "science" tells you, that's what your faith is placed in. I'm the same, only I believe the Bible to be God's word to us and my faith is placed in Him. Science is important and can shed light on many problems and issues today but where "science" and God's word diverge, I'll take my chances with God. And I don't believe that creation is incompatable with the known scientific facts.
-
bigeric
July 8, 2007, 5:05 p.m.retbg
No, I'm not an "Evangelical", I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist. While I believe my position to be absolutely right, I also believe that you have the right to accept a purely scientific explanation if you choose. But as I said, I also believe that many of the scientific "facts" known about the earth are compatable with creation and that there are scientific "facts" that are an incorrect assumption by scientists. Very little of the scientific theory of evolution is actually provable, scientific fact. In answer to your other point, people (unlike evangelicals) who are comfortable with their beliefs don't feel the need to force their views on someone else.
-
NoWayMan
July 8, 2007, 5:26 p.m.a question for creationists and intelligent design theorists:
we know that brown eyes are dominant over blue eyes, brown hair over blond hair, dark skin over fair skin, etc.
is this an act of science (ie, darwinism) or does this mean that god simply prefers people with these traits over people with the weaker traits?
-
-
Amazing1
July 8, 2007, 5:43 p.m.I think anyone who gives the nod to Intelligent Design should not be allowed to run for president. Intelligent Design as a theory is neither intelligent nor does it show any great design. But it sells to the ignorant who protest that they are not descended from apes. Evolution does not say we are descended from apes, only that we are related. And were I an ape, I daresay I would be appalled at the actions of my city cousins who start wars for no good reason and kill each other seemingly for the sport of it.
-
retbg
July 8, 2007, 5:47 p.m.Go to your room. No bananas for you. Much too on point. You must be one of them apes.
-
-
-
nu2007
July 8, 2007, 6:55 p.m.When will people start to realize that a debate is not a platform for learning and accepting facts? It is only good for filling the appetite of people who are hungry for confronting people with different beliefs. You don't find a real conclusion after a debate because each group will find their own "convincing" arguments that they are right. You can rarely see one group outdebate the other group, which then say, "Oh, you are right! Sorry for my ignorance! Please enlighten me more with your facts." And then the audience applauds to the winner group? Don't be silly! People do not back down in a heated debate. Science don't establish facts out of debate. There are some pioneers who dig out some evidences to build a theory. Then it's left to the rest of the science community to independently verify the evidences and strengthen the theory into facts. Let evidences speak for themselves, not your loud voice.
-
Theo_ll
July 8, 2007, 7:31 p.m.all smart people know that the creationist are correct so I agree there is no need for a debate. God made everything.
-
rockman069
July 8, 2007, 7:55 p.m.I find this to be an affront on three cases; it assumes religionists are not scientific, that religion goes against science, and that a debate will change the truth. I disagree with all three with a qualified "no" on the last--it can only steer ones perception of truth without actually changing it.
-
0gramstransfat
July 8, 2007, 8:33 p.m.I love the Scooby Doo references in the story!! If you want to believe that humans are the focus of a cosmic tug-of-war in a battle between good and evil, go ahead. All you need to do is watch the Star Wars saga or the Lord Of The Rings trilogy to see how it's going to end. Just remember, the earth was evolving life long before men decided to write religions.
-
saneman
July 8, 2007, 8:51 p.m.I can't imagine anybody wanting to waste their time debating with creationists. Weakminded people will always latch onto something (Religion) when their lives are out of control.
-
robcrocker
July 8, 2007, 9 p.m.The real "ideological" problem in this country right now isn't "creationism" it's "environmentalism" and our "Global Warming Evangelicals"......
They are funded big time by the tax free foundations. It's 30 to 40 Billion, yes Billion with a B, every year. That's a lot
of money and it buys a lot of influence and it's really screwing up our national policy debates.
-
Gotitright
July 8, 2007, 9:14 p.m.There are those that believe in creation and also in scientific facts. If life can change on earth, it does not make it non-created. What was the primate that came just before us on earth and how has been linked to us through DNA? I missed that one Mr Wizard! Only because Alec Baldwin left those facts out on "Walking with Man". Kind of an important fact, don't you think? At least for the scientific minded.
-
Socrates1
July 8, 2007, 9:14 p.m.I have one question for the creationist--Who did Cain and Abel "beget" with? If Eve was a Grandmother, who were the mother's?
-
WCFIELDS
July 8, 2007, 9:25 p.m."Don't 'debate' creationists!"
Never attempt to teach a PIG to sing. It's a waste of time and it just annoys the PIG.
-
Gotitright
July 8, 2007, 9:29 p.m.The story of Cane and Able is much like the one of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve means Man and Woman. It is a story of early man and his failures that lead to our position in God's eyes leading to the great flood. It is not a literal story as far as I know.
-
history-ferret
July 8, 2007, 9:37 p.m.The Scientists and Creationists are both WRONG.
Creation did not began 6 days ago or 13.7 Billion years ago. It began 10½ Billion years ago; our moon says so. Each day is 2 Billion years in Time duration.
Genesis 2.4 ONE DAY STRETCHED OUT INTO 7 DAYS.
4½ Billion years ago, and you come to the fourth day in the Bible. We are living 500 Million years into the Sixth Eon/Aeon day of Time, there remains 1½ Billion years of the Sixth Eon/Aeon day of Time. Then the Seventh Eon/Aeon day, Yah's Sabbath Day of REST from all his works.
READ HEBREWS Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 4:8-9 Another DAY OF REST, YET IN OUR FUTURE.
TOTAL TIME OF THIS CREATION 14 BILLION YEARS. THERE REMAINS 3½ BILLION YEARS OF TIME LEFT in this Creation.
Revelation 10:6 Last part: that there should be time NO MORE.
We are going into a Control Steady State Universe. After the Universe is recreated.
-
melm151805
July 8, 2007, 9:42 p.m.Is there anyone else out in web land that agrees that everyone's religion or no religion is their own business? And, also agrees that no one should display their religious connection in PUBLIC. I mean no distinctive hats, no nun's robes, no skull caps and on and on. All I'm saying is why must those who wear these things need to call attention to themselves? Are the rest of us supposed to treat people with special garb different? I don't feel disgusted, when I encounter them in a store so much as they don't like anyone different than themselves. Oh! I do believe in school uniforms up to High school and Jump suit for all air passingers!
-
njuserfriendly
July 8, 2007, 9:44 p.m.I think equal voice needs to be given to the flat earthers, those who do not believe in gravity, and the unicorn society, not to mention holocaust-deniers, and those who believe little green men live in canals throughout the US.
-
wildman6557
July 8, 2007, 9:51 p.m.Fundamentalist Christians insist that their interpretation of the Bible is literal. It isn't. While the Greek New Testament is fairly easy to translate because of the large existent Classical Greek Literature, ancient Hebrew is a nightmare. Look at Shakespeare, that is English that is less than 500 years old, but still it is difficult to translate. Imagine something that is 4500 years old. Even the Pharisees in Jesus' time had difficulty (note how they missed his coming) and they were 2000 years closer.
Geneses 1 agrees quite well (amazingly well actually) with modern science if you don't insist on taking the length of the day too literally. Judging from the difficulty translating ancient Hebrew, it is more than likely that the day isn't meant to be taken a literal 24 hours and that science and Geneses 1 IS in amazing agreement with modern science.
The first 360 comments are shown. Show all 800 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
