Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

Hi Crash,
This gets to the point of Percy's original post I think. The idea is that this is a site where both sides can debate their viewpoints under a set of guidelines that (in theory) prevent the debate to collapsing into a flame war like most other sites. If you consider that the point of science is to question and the point of religion is to not question but follow and submit, it becomes pretty clear to me why the debates always turn nasty. The evos cannot comprehend shutting off ones mind to methodological naturalism and the creationists cannot believe that we would not accept arguments from supposed authority.I think what Percy is stating, and I have also come to realize is that there is exceptionally little common ground for debate. What great debating insights can one really get from someone who says "I don't know anything about biology or the ToE but it is wrong because the bible says so"? Or the evidence is self evident? And from the other perspective, what do creationists gain by preaching at a group of skeptics who have heard the same old goddidit arguments over and over?I think most people who come here either enjoy the posts and the information one gets from those who agree with them (both creo and evo) or are merely facinated that anyone could live with such a polar opposite viewpoint from themselves...sort of like rubber necking at a traffic accident. That is also why both here and at other sites, I notice that the science part of the forum i.e. Biology forums etc. are far less active in discussions than the non EvC forums. People seem to seek out common ground in other subjects and the alliances don't hold up as tightly i.e. does anyone agree with anything contracycle has to say outside of an evolution topic?But this does not really further the debate much and at best, some people (evo and creo) might learn a bit about the research that actually goes on in the real world instead of the media hype or the misinformation distributed by religious groups. I don't really see a solution either to engaging both sides in productive debate.

quote:

---

Worse, the arrogance and pride displayed by creationists is itself highly inflammatory. Especially when it leads - as it too often does - to groundless attacks on opponents.

---

This is a bit too generalized. While I will admit that many creationists show these traits, not all do. There were people like Peter Borger and a few others who were able to maintain interesting debates that enjoyed a fairly sophisticated discussion of modern science. Even if Borger and his like ultimately rejected the conclusions, it was clear that they had some grasp of the basics.
Think of it this way, which do you think would be more fun, to debate Michael Behe or Faith? I think Behe would make for a really interesting debate partner even if you could come no closer to agreeing with each other in the end than with any run of the mill YEC. Even some of the really whacky creationists make for interesting debates like Stephen ben Yeshua and his Baysian probablilty arguments.

quote:

---

Too many creationists are their own worst enemies and their biggest disadvantage is their own attitude. But since they react with anger and rejection to any criticism - no matter how justified - how can they hope to even recognise their problem ?

---

However, this is not a purely creationist trait. I find that there are several posters on the evo side that display these problems just as often as creationists do. I think this is also what Percy and holmes are getting at. Both sides behave pretty badly but creationists are without fail, in violation of the forum guideline requiring the providing of evidence. Perhaps that requirement is what needs to be worked on as opposed to the "civility" guidelines where I see less of a distinction between creos and evos. I don't mean that one should abandon supporting ones position. But in the interest of debate, just discussion of what evidence is can be of use and creationists may require a bit more slack...just to get them to engage at all.

quote:

---

As I remember Borger the main difference was that he knew a lot more than the average creationist and was able to take scientific argument that bit further. But IIRC he still ended up much the same way - which is why he's no longer here.

​

Behe's been cagey enough on his position that I don't think that he would argue at all. I don't even know if he is a creatist strictly speaking.

---

Actually, I am not entirely clear why Borger was banned permanently. He got banned at the same time as I got suspended for a day because we got into a heated exchange. But normally, things remained fairly civil.... though the posts (Quetzal's as well) tended to run on for thousands of words with dozens of cited papers. I think under the current guidelines...Peter would still be around.I still think the debates with Borger were some of the most entertaining I have had here. He did know more of the basics so it made it that much more potent when his arguements were trounced...when Peter was forced to backtrack it was far more striking than finally hearing a creationist admit they know nothing about genetics and are basically talking out of their tailpipe. When a complete ignoramus comes on the board with a typical complaint copied and pasted from and ID or creationist site it is hardly worth a debate. But a more technical discussion such as Borger's non random mutation arguments were far more interesting for all involved. It is also easier to stick to the subject than to engage in a flame war. That you think Kurt Wise would be a good debater suggests that you also think there are creationists that could debate according to forum rules out there. I think the challenge is to promote debates between evos and these types of creos and minimize the background noise of arguing with creos who come to the site as if they were the first people ever to suggest that "EVilution aint true cuz my dog did not give birth to salamanders". It seems that recently the proportion of more capable creos has gone way down and it may be that many are lurking.

quote:

---

But surely the real problem at hand is not what to do about hypothetical creationists who are capable of decent discussion, but what to do with the creationists we have.

---

I think what Percy wants is to have a forum that appeals to the hypothetical creationists...particularly because we have had a few cases where they did participate and are thus not just hypothetical. Holmes and Percy are pointing out that the site is currently not functioning that way if they (both evos) detect that there is a bias against creos in general. I think since the ultimate idea here is for creos and evos to talk to one another, the forum should promote a discussion anyway possible even if not everyone (or nobody) is completely happy with the solution. Frankly, if I just wanted to discuss evolution with other evos, I have many other resources besides this place including my own research group. A creationist who wants to discuss biblical prophecy surely has better venues than this as well. But to bring such disparate groups into discussion with one another is obviously a serious challenge....glad I'm not running the site

If you were looking towards the end of his tenure here it was pretty bad. And Peter had some really off days...but overall, a lot of interesting discussions came out of his threads. Look at the Wolemia thread for example...Quetzal was on fire in that one. I had to read up quite a bit to stay on top of it.

The choice of Peter Borger as an example was not to call into question your having banned him. But rather to serve as an example of a reasonably productive and sustained debate i.e. it is possible.