I agree that something needs to be relaxed to make it easier for Creationists here, but I don't understand how the requirements for evidence can be relaxed. Could you give an example of what you mean, perhaps in the context of the erosion/deposition discussion?
Not in the context of that discussion, no, since I have not been concerned to read it.
You agree, I think, that creationism does not have a chance when discussion is based on empirical evidence. My reaction to the topic title of the this thread is accordingly an unambiguous "Yes". Creationism is unmitigated pseudoscientific codswallop, and I guess you are of about the same view.
That does not mean I have to be rude to creationists, of course; and if people take offence at my evaluation of the content of a position, so be it.
The question for someone who shares my evaluation is: how does one engage such a view? And more fundamentally; WHY does one engage such a view?
One of your aims here is to have an engagement which actually includes creationists. If you impose on that a requirement that everybody behave entirely rationally and consistently with empirical evidence, then I think you have an inevitable conflict of aims.
The statement of the relevant guideline in the rules is at present worded thus:
quote:
2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.
My thought is that you don't have to be strict about progress being by addition of strictly empirical evidence. The word "or" in the guideline allows that someone can simply "enlarge" the argument as they see fit. The main thing is to avoid mere repetition.
We also need to allow that empirical evidence never formally proves anything, and so "I'm not persuaded" can be a permitted response. What is really needed, I suspect, is a mutual willingness to wind up a discussion when this point is reached.
The aim, in my view, should not be to convince creationists. That is rarely possible, at least in the short term. The aim (IMO) is to have the two perspectives on the table, side by side, so that the content of the argument in favour of either side is elucidated and so that lurkers or readers or people dropping in can make some kind of informed comparison.
I would like us to be more strict about mere noise posts from the evolutionist side that say effectively nothing more than "you're an idiot" or "you don't know what you are talking about" or just plain mockery and jokes at creationist expense.
It would be good to have a guideline that explicitly notes people have very different views and that even if we think their arguments are worthless, they may evaluate things quite differently. Whether this is rational or not, getting angry about people failing to accept or understand an argument is a bad idea. This applies both ways.
A comment such as "you don't know what you are talking about" is OK if backed up by some kind of additional explanation to show that the critic DOES know what THEY are talking about. Just making the assertion that creationism is codswallop, however, is a problem.
I know I have done it above. My excuse is that in the context of this thread I am not responding to a creationist position, but setting out what seems to be a perspective you and I have in common and do not need to debate when thinking of forum guidelines.
Cheers -- Sylas
™ Version 4.2
