The Evolution of evcforum.net

Hi Brian,I've read all the posts of this thread (I think), and I like the constructive approach you're taking. Here's my thoughts:What is the point of EvC?

To "correct" those who don't know science and scientific results?

To sharpen our debate skills?

To sharpen our own knowledge by attempting to teach?

To inform lurkers via public online debate?

To learn what we can by trying to understand others?

To find a way for different people to actually engage each other in a productive manner?

​

Each of us seems to have a different purpose here, and it sounds like those purposes don't always work together. I personally find it to be one of the frustrating aspects of EvC--trying to debate with someone who is here for a different purpose than I am.

​

Do you think this is part of the issue? Maybe it's useful to talk specifically about what Percy's trying to accomplish with the board, and how that fits with what you (and others) are trying to get out of the board.

​

Take it easy Brian.
Ben

Hi Robin,I didn't mean to imply that any person or goal was better or worse than any other--just to suggest that different goals seem to conflict with others, especially when the goals of different posters aren't clear or explicit.Participating in this forum has been a big boon for me, and I'm nothing but thankful. I agree with the points you made as well, and I don't see anything wrong with what you said either.All I'm trying to do is to ask, what are the goals of the board, what are the goals of the participants, and how do we make sure they work together? That's it. Note: my paraphrase; I'm not sure on the accuracy. Correct me if I cut out too much.Anyway, I tend to agree. But I also think the attitude can really describe something that is cross-cultural--the feeling that you "know the answer" and that it gives you a special license in dealing with other people.Because of that, I have my doubts in our ability to address it. But I'm thinking hard. Any ideas?

I don't know, I wasn't around at that time either.I can see how that would be useful for practicing presentation of material, "winning" debates, and the like. I can't see how it resolves any EvC issues at all though.I don't think the site defines well what the goals are. But I do feel that these two types of goals don't really work together.Ben

Hi TL,I'm not sure what your question has to do with my post or the part you quoted.But I do understand what you're saying. People like to learn much more in an applied setting that's fun (or otherwise motivated) rather than discuss ideas.But to reiterate the point that you quoted, but I don't think that you're addressing: is the point to argue and disseminate information to those who may or may not know better? Or is the point to build some basic understanding between creationists and "evolutionists"?And by "basic understanding" I don't mean "yeah, I understand that we're right and they're wrong" or "I understand that creationists have their heads stuck up their ass." I mean real understanding of the fact that the EvC debate is not a debate about facts at all.Ben

Mammuthus,I agree with how you break things down, that it's not black and white, that people basically get out of this what they want to get out of it.What my basic observation is, is that it often seems like there's two groups of people simply talking at each other, rather than with each other. Part of what this board can try to do is try to instruct people in useful ways to communicate.The EvC debate in my eyes is not at all about facts. The facts just obscure the real issues, which are totally social. So, being focused on talking about facts... it leads to people just continuing to talk at each other and fundamentally not addressing the underlying issue.In my eyes, it takes recognition that EvC is a social issue, and not a factual one, in order to make real progress in communicating and resolving things. Now's not the time to discuss facts, it's time to discuss if and when those facts matter. "Discussing" facts themselves only serves to obscure that.Ben

There is no creationist alternative to even compare. It's evolution vs. lack-of-evolution. The facts aren't evolution vs. creation; the facts are "is evolution viable?" And it's not even a dispute, it's mostly just willful ignorance of the facts.If creationists didn't see a conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution, they wouldn't even bother with evolution at all. The objections aren't scientific, they're social. They're half-assed objections because these aren't people interested in facts, they're interested in results. They latch onto whatever area they think will produce the result that they want.EvC isn't about the facts. Exactly. The facts are secondary. It doesn't matter so much what the facts are. The question is, in my country (the US), what demands do we make of the general population? How do we as a culture want to interpret science? What is the role of science in government, and how does that affect religious freedom in this country?THOSE are the issues that drive EvC. EvC is not a factual debate; if it was, you'd see the debate in the scientific community. Creos only attack the facts because they think they have to. I find it to be a move out of desperation, a move basically lacking a game plan. The real issue are social... at least in the US.AbE:So to clarify and summarize... the facts are a secondary issue in EvC. Right now "questioning" the facts simply obscures a social issue. I see a lot of discussion about facts, and even when things are layed out, either people use a smokescreen to evade them, or they just move on to the next possible area of question. By and large, when you discuss facts with someone of YEC faith, you're talking at them. Those YECs to whom facts matter are those who have a weak faith in YEC.I think the questions I outlined above are the ones that really matter in addressing EvC in the most general case.BenThis message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/10/26 07:19 AMThis message has been edited by Ben, Thursday, 2005/11/03 05:22 AM

Goodness. For the first time, I feel like I'm not insane Yup. You have to get past the bizarre questions and fundamentally address... why would someone who so obviously doesn't care about the measured facts be asking these questions? What makes them think they have to defend their faith re: science? Is science fundamentally addressing religious beliefs and, if so, is that what we want? Is science, in it's social side, make religious claims by restricting what claims are accepted from other religions?You did a good job summarizing some thoughts about these. I'm not looking to address them here; only to point out (again) what kinds of thoughts I see as laying behind the creationist's (YEC's) questioning of evolution. Haha well... thanks. I've been floundering around trying to articulate myself for a while... hopefully small successes like this can help me build a clearer representation of my thoughts. So, I'm glad. And I get that sense of... "finally." Yes. And promoting "smashing" of creationists arguments then, in my eyes, is promoting the failure to address EvC. Which is why I see Brian and truthlover's complaints as both valid and still ... lacking.And thanks for your summary of how these questions are addressed. Those were helpful mini-summaries. I'm sure I'll be quoting them at some point in the future, in helping explicate my thoughts.BenThis message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/10/26 07:47 AM

Here's another way to open up debate:Those who post here a lot tend to have better PNT than newbies. Why not open up the forums for direct topic opening for all members over "X" posts?If topics are wildly poor, they can always be closed by admins, and the user can be admonished. If it happens consistently with a user, then such powers can easily be turned off.Since this would require a software feature, a hack that we could make work for now would be to have a "request permission to open new topics" thread, where individual users can request to be granted such permissions. We'd open it up to a bunch of people right away, but fewer and fewer. It wouldn't take much admin work... after the initial blow through. But I think the admin tools might be good enough to help handle it pretty smoothly.Maybe that's an acceptable medium point that would be acceptable to all, and could be implemented with a minimum of work.

Please define "success." Conversion from creationism to belief in evolution? Just wondering what you think the goal of the board should be.Thanks!
Ben

Hi Nighttrain,Thanks for the previous reply. After reading this one, I had a question; not to disagree, but just to ask about what might be acceptable to you. In the same vein, I don't think you can get mutual repect with a mindset that regards believers as idiots at best and evil at worst.There's two points in saying that: first, that extreme positions will always be hard to deal with; I think the goals of the board don't necessarily have to consider extremists. Second, that both sides exhibit the same type of behavior; each has a differing position WRT reason. Taking reason over faith or faith over reason, there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut necessity to choose one as "better" than the other. So, this is really where my question is. Why not "convert" the mindset to a more faith-based basis for dialog? What is it that makes you think that reason, as opposed to faith, is the better direction for discussion?Thanks again for your thoughts... sorry if I sound like I'm being obtuse.Ben