I’ve recently read a comment, and a reply to another comment, in Slashdot, in the “Creation Museum opens” thread. I think both are brilliant. I won’t quote them in full here, but I’d recommend their reading to anyone.
From the initial comment:
I’ve noticed that many slashdot articles about evolution seem to attract a sizeable number of creationists. Because of this, I’ve decided to address the serious (i.e. non-trolling) creationists that frequent slashdot in the hope that I can prevent you from making the same easily avoided mistakes that make so many of your brethren sound like ignorant cretins. Here are some common arguments that creationists use, and why I think that you shouldn’t use them… unless of course you want to be ridiculed. Note: this is by no means a comprehensive list.
(1) “Evolution is just a THEORY”
This is the most common (and the most disappointing) creationist argument I hear on a regular basis. While it’s true that evolution is a theory, this statement is made in an attempt to cast doubt on evolution by implying that evolution is akin to a wild guess that scientists came up with after a night of heavy drinking. Newsflash: it’s not going to work. Most educated people understand that you’re confusing the word “theory” (which means an explanation or model that is capable of predicting future events) with the word “hypothesis” (which means an educated guess). Calling evolution a “theory” isn’t an insult. For the millionth time, I will repeat this: gravity is also “just” a theory (for example, google the “General Theory of Relativity”). I might even add that most scientists would consider evolution to be a better-supported theory than gravity, because of the fact that gravity cannot (currently) be quantized, despite decades of attempts. If you want to debate evolution, fine- but don’t play these childish word games.
Of course, it goes on. Really, read it.
And from his reply, to another user who suggested he participate in a public debate about evolution / creationism:
(2) Creationists often make statements like “Evolution can’t produce new information in a genome” or “We don’t know how old the earth is because carbon dating isn’t useful on large timescales and we don’t know the initial amounts of isotopes and polonium halos disprove old ages anyway”. Answering each one of these statements would require hours of boring, dry lecturing- something that simply isn’t going to happen. And the problem is that creationists don’t just make one of these statements, they make DOZENS of them. Answering this kind of deluge of mis-information in such a way that it can be intelligible to the average person would take an unbelievably long amount of time. As such, even answering questions from the crowd can be a tricky business. How do you explain isochronology and radioactive dating methods in 2 minutes to a young earth creationist? I can barely explain it to a fellow scientist in less than 15 minutes. Now imagine someone standing up and asking two or three of these questions in rapid fire mode, and ridiculing you for not having a snappy answer. This kind of public failure would not look good.
Again, follow the two links and read the entire comments. The first one is “print out and give to friends and family” material, and the second explains the frustration of discussing science with non-scientists to whom “quick, easy answers” (such as “God did it”) often sound a lot better than the inevitably more complex truth.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I think any time creationists argue against science they should no longer be allowed to use technology or receive medicine. See how much they like science then.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ’simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
What does assembling a cell have to do with the reality of evolution?
If theists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ god. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is the ’simple’ god.
I’m not sure how hard it would be for scientists to “build” a cell, but I imagine that if they can’t already, they will be able to some day.
This is really an appeal to ignorance isn’t it? The fact that people don’t know things has no bearing in the evidence for or against evolution. There are lots of things humans can’t do.
If I asked you to make black hole and said “If you can’t make a black hole I won’t accept any evidence you offer about anything.” you’d think I was crazy.
Black holes happen naturally, and all the time. Just like evolution.
In the beginnning, God, the creator of all things, created a process called evolution.
I like how no logic is present in that post… just a declaration.
No Way, can you see any possibility that evolution needs no god?
Or is it God that taught you english as apposed to any other language, instead of the one in which most people speak in your surroundings?
Someone once said to me, “Water flows down, the easiest way it can. Evolution.”
Kren,
I can see the possibility that evolution does not need God. Can you see the possibility that a God could start it in motion?
Would you argue that TXStorms post about the creation of a ’simple’ god has logic? I would certainly hope not.
my point is simply that, even if evolution were proved beyond any possible doubt tomorrow it would not disprove the existence of a (or multiple) gods.
I suppose it would not. One could always argue as you did:
[quote post="267"]In the beginning, God, the creator of all things, created a process called evolution.[/quote]
Which (no offense) is a pretty sad argument with 0 evidence.
But the discussion of whether there is or is not a god has been had here and on the forum a few times and it is not the topic of this post.
I would suggest reading the forum. The question of God was the first topic discussed.
disproving the existence of gods requires only the most basic understanding of the concepts involed and a willingness to accept that reality determines truth, not mindlesws faith. Those of fail lack the latter trait..
Do not try to invoke my name against reason ro falsely as you have done here, it will fail every time.
[quote post="267"]disproving the existence of gods requires only the most basic understanding of the concepts involed and a willingness to accept that reality determines truth, not mindlesws faith. Those of fail lack the latter trait..
Do not try to invoke my name against reason ro falsely as you have done here, it will fail every time.[/quote]
Yes, I too highly suggest that one stop trying to develop true understanding of something once one has “the most basic understanding of the concepts involved”. At that point it is obvious that those of superior intellectual ability should be able to declare their judgement as fact and move on incredulously.
It is not the most basic concept of God that is worth defending or defeating. In fact, I would also say that God, as it is understood in the most basic way, obviously doesn’t exist.
just out of curiousity, and, to get back on topic - what future events has the theory of evolution predicted?
Either you misunderstand the difference between necessary and sufficient, else you are less interested in knowledge than in self-promotion. That it requires only minimal effort and ability to come to realize that the notion of a god is absurd in the extreme, self-contradictory, and without any hint of any basis in reality does not imply in any fashion that anyone is limited to those minimal abilities and willingnesses. Certainly you will find that almost to a person it is only the ones who adopt faith who cease to learn, after all learning necessitates abandoning faith entirely..
Although you are clearly presenting a garden path which is by definition OFF topic, the easy answer is: change. Remember that under faith “god” created “perfection” which necessarily cannot change. So the faith “answer” has been proved false yet again..
The first places the words necessary or sufficient appear on this entire page are in your last post so, it is not possible to logically discern that I have confused them. If I cared for self-promotion I would probably leave some semblance of who I actually am, for example, a website.
I have not “implied in any fashion that anyone is limited to those minimal abilities and willingnesses.” I will say that appears to be about as far as you are open to going intellectually. Please take note that I used the word “appears”, this is very obviously stated as opinion not fact.
How is pointing out that evolution cannot and does not disprove the existence of a God within the comments of a post about evolution on a website dedicated to atheism of topic? I, for one, would be just as willing to point out on a religious website that, if it could be proven undoubtedly true that a God does exist, it would not disprove the existence of evolution.
As another question: If evolution is correct shouldn’t new life forms be developing even as we speak? Maybe I misunderstand but it would seem so.
Your post assumed a confustion between the distinction made previously between necessary condition and sufficient conditions, and your post demonstrated a clear confusion between the two, where you assume sufficient conditions were presented when in fact merely necessary conditions were presented.
New entites are created all the time, are you unfamiliar with hybridizations, genetic manipulation, or breeding?
Hi TXStorm,
I love your posts! Not sure how I made a “confusion between the distinction made previously between necessary condition and sufficient conditions”, unless possibly this “previous distinction” was made somewhere else in the vast Internet because it was certainly not made on this page.
Where do you see an assumption on my part that either sufficient or necessary condition are presented?
By the way, I’m not talking about breeding or genetic manipulation and I’m definitely not talking about hybridizations. It is obvious that I haven’t made my point clear enought and that is completely my bad.
Here it is, hopefully clearly enough:
Show me where, with or without human intervention, any form of recognized life can be shown to develop without an life preceding it. In other words, show me any instance where non-living material suddenly joins in some form to become living.
I don’t mean this as a defense for a belief in a god. It seems to me that if evolution were the answer we should be able to find life developing from the raw material without preceding life. But, I think curious at a minimum that we can’t.
Since your question is akin to asking a car manufacturer to prove that he builds skyscrapers, I can only suggest you read Origin of Species, and then move on to more modern works. Or perhaps you could check out in the research done around the active cones of volcanoes, or virus research, or any number of other areas which appear to on the path you claim must be necessary (mistakenly of course) for evolution to accurately describ speciation.
As for the confusion about necessary and sufficient conditions you clearly fail to understand them, as this claim proves conclusively: [quote]The first places the words necessary or sufficient appear on this entire page are in your last post so, it is not possible to logically discern that I have confused them.[/quote]
Whenever you present an argument you are presenting (in theory) the necessary and sufficient conditions for the conclusion to be true. I pointed out that there were alternatives to your suggested conclusion, in which you relied upon (falsely perceived to be) necessary conditions, but failed to offer sufficient conditions. Clearly any argument offered can provide sufficient evidence to speak of the use of necessary and sufficient conditions.
You declare: [quote]Yes, I too highly suggest that one stop trying to develop true understanding of something once one has “the most basic understanding of the concepts involved”[/quote] in response to the objective fact that one need only understand the basic concepts in order to disprove the existence of a “god.” I stated the NECESSARY conditions, but your comment assumes that I stated the totalitarity of my existence, or that of any on else. This necessitates a confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions, as well as confusing the necessary conditions for disproving the silly notion of a “god” with the sufficient conditions for living and experiencing life.
Congratulations,
You sound smart and hardly said anything worth reading. Are you a politician?
Yes, I understand the two words you wish to debate but do not believe at all that you have provided either the necessary or sufficient criteria for your argument about disproving a “God”.
But, I would agree it is very simple to disprove the existence of the God(s) that are defined by the most basic understanding of the concepts involved.
I wish to make it clear that any lack of response on the part of TXStorm is because he is respecting the request of this website’s operator and not because he feels that I have won this argument or otherwise conceded victory to me.
He deserves at least this level of recognition so that future readers do not misunderstand the end of this discussion.