Evolutionary debate
September 3, 2005 11:27 AM Subscribe
I'm looking for some blogs/websites/fora where ID/Creationists & evolutionary scientists debate each other without rancour, preferably responding also to readers comments & questions. Know any?
Response by poster: Sorry - I don't want to rekindle a debate which Mefi covers regularly, one which I am firmly convinced by one side. I want to see how proponents of the issues on opposite sides rebut the evidence.
If it doesn't exist, maybe it should...
posted by dash_slot- at 12:32 PM on September 3, 2005
If it doesn't exist, maybe it should...
posted by dash_slot- at 12:32 PM on September 3, 2005
You know what, my comment above looks trollish & inappropriate and I shouldn't have posted it.
Yes, if it doesn't exist, maybe it should. Don't let me stop you.
posted by Tuwa at 12:35 PM on September 3, 2005
Yes, if it doesn't exist, maybe it should. Don't let me stop you.
posted by Tuwa at 12:35 PM on September 3, 2005
I'm an evolutionary biologist(-in-training) and I don't know any.
I agree with Tuwa -- I don't think any exist. Certainly none of the profs that I know would be interested in debating people who not only do not share their basic assumptions but, apparently, do not know enough about the scientific process to engage in a discussion.
posted by docgonzo at 12:36 PM on September 3, 2005
I agree with Tuwa -- I don't think any exist. Certainly none of the profs that I know would be interested in debating people who not only do not share their basic assumptions but, apparently, do not know enough about the scientific process to engage in a discussion.
posted by docgonzo at 12:36 PM on September 3, 2005
The Panda's Thumb is one of the leading anti-ID blogs -- and also posts regularly about evolutionary theory.
posted by docgonzo at 12:38 PM on September 3, 2005
posted by docgonzo at 12:38 PM on September 3, 2005
Well, probably not at the same damn place because you know, world peace is easier to achieve than a calm discussion between the two sides.
But for the scientific side, go to TalkOrigins.org and for the other side (which I don't subscribe to in the least), you might try a site like AnswersInGenesis, I suppose.
I want to see how proponents of the issues on opposite sides rebut the evidence
Well... if you want to call argumentum ad ignorantiam "evidence", that's your choice. But you can't mix up science and the supernatural.
posted by madman at 12:41 PM on September 3, 2005
But for the scientific side, go to TalkOrigins.org and for the other side (which I don't subscribe to in the least), you might try a site like AnswersInGenesis, I suppose.
I want to see how proponents of the issues on opposite sides rebut the evidence
Well... if you want to call argumentum ad ignorantiam "evidence", that's your choice. But you can't mix up science and the supernatural.
posted by madman at 12:41 PM on September 3, 2005
iidb.org is a good hotspot too. usually the debates are pretty one-sided (mirroring the truth of the situation)
posted by clord at 12:50 PM on September 3, 2005
posted by clord at 12:50 PM on September 3, 2005
in fact, re-reading, iidb is likely to be exactly what you are looking for.
posted by clord at 12:51 PM on September 3, 2005
posted by clord at 12:51 PM on September 3, 2005
I studied evolutionary biology and historical geology in college, and I know of no such forum. At least at the time I was heavily involved in the field, there were no forums for honest debate between scientists and creationists because there were no creationists trained in biology and geology who were interested in honest debate. I don't mean that as a snark, and I think it's still true today.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:56 PM on September 3, 2005
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:56 PM on September 3, 2005
Best answer: I think there is no forum for such a "debate" because, as others have noted, there is no debate to be had. An actual debate involved agreement on basic principles to establish a common footing, and in this case the common footing is, roughly speaking, the basic ideas of scientific inquiry. ID does not hold with true scientific inquiry. ID proponents say that when the subject in question becomes too complex for us to answer with certainty we throw the solution over to God -- and yet incorporate that result into our scientific model. That is unacceptable to any genuine scientist.
If you want to say that, for example, the origin of the cosmos is a theological question and leave it outside the realm of science, that's fine. You can still say that and practice science. But if you say that unknowable-therefore-theological issues are part of science, you're abusing the field.
Perhaps the issue is of less charged importance, but I seem to remember (concentration camp survivor) Elie Wiesel refusing to "debate" Holocaust deniers, because merely debating them gave authority to the notion that there is an open issue to be settled. Likewise, simply debating over the notions of "creation science" suggests that there could be such a thing.
posted by argybarg at 2:03 PM on September 3, 2005
If you want to say that, for example, the origin of the cosmos is a theological question and leave it outside the realm of science, that's fine. You can still say that and practice science. But if you say that unknowable-therefore-theological issues are part of science, you're abusing the field.
Perhaps the issue is of less charged importance, but I seem to remember (concentration camp survivor) Elie Wiesel refusing to "debate" Holocaust deniers, because merely debating them gave authority to the notion that there is an open issue to be settled. Likewise, simply debating over the notions of "creation science" suggests that there could be such a thing.
posted by argybarg at 2:03 PM on September 3, 2005
Response by poster: Thank you all.
I suspected that there was indeed no such desired site, and opens the question - do these opponents have so little respect for each other that they cannot but talk past each other?
Although my bias is towards rational understanding of the world, I am no trained scientist and wanted to be able to see specific rebuttals to specific arguments.
This sums up my feeling on the matter:
I think there is no forum for such a "debate" because, as others have noted, there is no debate to be had. An actual debate involved agreement on basic principles to establish a common footing, and in this case the common footing is, roughly speaking, the basic ideas of scientific inquiry. ID does not hold with true scientific inquiry. ID proponents say that when the subject in question becomes too complex for us to answer with certainty we throw the solution over to God -- and yet incorporate that result into our scientific model. That is unacceptable to any genuine scientist.
If it were possible, much could be resolved, but it's too much like squaring the circle. The scientists won't admit a 'god' as an explanation, and the IDers won't prohibit it.
Still, I'd like to see it happen: and only someone with an absolutely fair hand on the tiller could do it.
Hmm.. they say 'if you want something done, ask a busy man....'
posted by dash_slot- at 2:36 PM on September 3, 2005
I suspected that there was indeed no such desired site, and opens the question - do these opponents have so little respect for each other that they cannot but talk past each other?
Although my bias is towards rational understanding of the world, I am no trained scientist and wanted to be able to see specific rebuttals to specific arguments.
This sums up my feeling on the matter:
I think there is no forum for such a "debate" because, as others have noted, there is no debate to be had. An actual debate involved agreement on basic principles to establish a common footing, and in this case the common footing is, roughly speaking, the basic ideas of scientific inquiry. ID does not hold with true scientific inquiry. ID proponents say that when the subject in question becomes too complex for us to answer with certainty we throw the solution over to God -- and yet incorporate that result into our scientific model. That is unacceptable to any genuine scientist.
If it were possible, much could be resolved, but it's too much like squaring the circle. The scientists won't admit a 'god' as an explanation, and the IDers won't prohibit it.
Still, I'd like to see it happen: and only someone with an absolutely fair hand on the tiller could do it.
Hmm.. they say 'if you want something done, ask a busy man....'
posted by dash_slot- at 2:36 PM on September 3, 2005
I don't know of any places where these debates might happen, but there are a lot of sites where Evolutionists pontificate against creationists.
The Loom, Carl Zimmer's blog is a great one, and talk.origins is one of those, and it's great reading too.
posted by delmoi at 2:37 PM on September 3, 2005
The Loom, Carl Zimmer's blog is a great one, and talk.origins is one of those, and it's great reading too.
posted by delmoi at 2:37 PM on September 3, 2005
Best answer: In googling for this article, in which specific challenges to the "theory of Evolution" are discussed, I just came across this video [QT link] of a public debate between a "young earth Creationist", an "old earth Creationist" and, I presume, an "Evolutionist" (must have missed the bit where he was introduced) that you might be interested in.
I'm now about 10 minutes into the clip, and I'm already majorly disturbed by the first speaker, a scientist who's rather entertaining, but dismissed the idea of Evolution as science on the grounds that science has to be about things you can observe and you can't observe things that happened in the past.
Also, what everyone else has said.
posted by mumble at 2:49 PM on September 3, 2005
I'm now about 10 minutes into the clip, and I'm already majorly disturbed by the first speaker, a scientist who's rather entertaining, but dismissed the idea of Evolution as science on the grounds that science has to be about things you can observe and you can't observe things that happened in the past.
Also, what everyone else has said.
posted by mumble at 2:49 PM on September 3, 2005
Okay, the first speaker (A FORMER BIOLOGY TEACHER) just said he doesn't mind if people believe in Evolution, but he resents the notion that these dumb lies should be taught in public schools.
So much for a "debate without rancour", I guess. QED.
posted by mumble at 3:10 PM on September 3, 2005
So much for a "debate without rancour", I guess. QED.
posted by mumble at 3:10 PM on September 3, 2005
Response by poster: mumble:
Thanks for that link. I'm d/l that QT file, but it's huge and it'll take all night. It doesn't seem to be on my fave P2P network - is there a quicker way to get it? The smarmy young-earther is strangely compelling (hasn't got to the other 2 yet).
posted by dash_slot- at 3:57 PM on September 3, 2005
Thanks for that link. I'm d/l that QT file, but it's huge and it'll take all night. It doesn't seem to be on my fave P2P network - is there a quicker way to get it? The smarmy young-earther is strangely compelling (hasn't got to the other 2 yet).
posted by dash_slot- at 3:57 PM on September 3, 2005
"ID proponents say that when the subject in question becomes too complex for us to answer with certainty we throw the solution over to God -- and yet incorporate that result into our scientific model. That is unacceptable to any genuine scientist."
That's just NOT true. There are actually many ID people who do NOT believe in God. The creationists and ID people do not always get along. Do you even realize that?
-
posted by Independent Scholarship at 4:10 PM on September 3, 2005
That's just NOT true. There are actually many ID people who do NOT believe in God. The creationists and ID people do not always get along. Do you even realize that?
-
posted by Independent Scholarship at 4:10 PM on September 3, 2005
dash_slot-
Yes, I should have mentioned the size of the clip, whoops. I'm using a download manager right now, which speeds things up a bit, but it'll still take a while, I'm afraid.
Oh, and the "Evolutionist" is actually Michael Shermer of skeptic.com fame. Cool. (Smarmy young-earth guy completely baffled me. I simply cannot comprehend his point of view.)
And for completeness' sake, the video was found here.
posted by mumble at 4:18 PM on September 3, 2005
Yes, I should have mentioned the size of the clip, whoops. I'm using a download manager right now, which speeds things up a bit, but it'll still take a while, I'm afraid.
Oh, and the "Evolutionist" is actually Michael Shermer of skeptic.com fame. Cool. (Smarmy young-earth guy completely baffled me. I simply cannot comprehend his point of view.)
And for completeness' sake, the video was found here.
posted by mumble at 4:18 PM on September 3, 2005
In my opinion, the best Evolution vs. Creation debate forum is EvCforum.net.
We have people of all kinds, scientists, lay-people, believers, historians, et cetera. A good balance of moderators from both sides also contributes to the overall experience. Fact-checking and good debate practices are required -- it's not for people that just like to yell.
I would recommend it to anyone who has a desire for knowledge and balanced discussion. [via]
posted by dsv at 4:39 PM on September 3, 2005
We have people of all kinds, scientists, lay-people, believers, historians, et cetera. A good balance of moderators from both sides also contributes to the overall experience. Fact-checking and good debate practices are required -- it's not for people that just like to yell.
I would recommend it to anyone who has a desire for knowledge and balanced discussion. [via]
posted by dsv at 4:39 PM on September 3, 2005
Response by poster: Thanks - I backward-googled it & found that page, I'll have a look at d/l manager. Ta.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:40 PM on September 3, 2005
posted by dash_slot- at 4:40 PM on September 3, 2005
There are actually many ID people who do NOT believe in God.
Interesting: I've seen plenty of ID discussions where the subject of who the designer might be is avoided, but I haven't seen any where the ID proponent says they don't believe in God. Links?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:08 PM on September 3, 2005
Interesting: I've seen plenty of ID discussions where the subject of who the designer might be is avoided, but I haven't seen any where the ID proponent says they don't believe in God. Links?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:08 PM on September 3, 2005
That's just NOT true. There are actually many ID people who do NOT believe in God. The creationists and ID people do not always get along. Do you even realize that?
As far as I know this is simply false. Indeed, the creators and primary proponents of Intelligent [sic] Design [sic] are members of the Discovery Institute, a long-time opponent of scientific explanations of origins and a proponent of creationism. Indeed, the Discovery Institute engages in what it calls the "Wedge Strategy," whereby it uses ID as a tool to discredit evolutionary theory and open the door for teaching Christian doctrine in public schools.
I've been around this debate a long time, and I've never met an IDer that did not believe in the Christian god. As PST mentions, most IDers intentionally avoid discussing the issue in an attempt to avoid being identified for what they are--an advocacy group for teaching biblical creation, or some variant thereof, in public school.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:43 PM on September 3, 2005
As far as I know this is simply false. Indeed, the creators and primary proponents of Intelligent [sic] Design [sic] are members of the Discovery Institute, a long-time opponent of scientific explanations of origins and a proponent of creationism. Indeed, the Discovery Institute engages in what it calls the "Wedge Strategy," whereby it uses ID as a tool to discredit evolutionary theory and open the door for teaching Christian doctrine in public schools.
Informally known as the "Wedge Document," it was a fund raising tool used by the Discovery Institute to raise money for its subsidiary charged with promoting its science and education agenda, the Center for Science and Culture, at the time called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). As stated in the Wedge Document [7], the strategy is designed to defeat "Darwinism" and to promote an idea of science "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The ultimate goal of the Wedge strategy is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values.From Wikipedia's article on the Discovery Institute.
I've been around this debate a long time, and I've never met an IDer that did not believe in the Christian god. As PST mentions, most IDers intentionally avoid discussing the issue in an attempt to avoid being identified for what they are--an advocacy group for teaching biblical creation, or some variant thereof, in public school.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:43 PM on September 3, 2005
I don't see how you could be an Intelligent Design advocate and NOT believe in God. Who or what is then doing the designing? Aliens?
posted by sophist at 9:04 PM on September 3, 2005
posted by sophist at 9:04 PM on September 3, 2005
I don't see how you could be an Intelligent Design advocate and NOT believe in God. Who or what is then doing the designing? Aliens?
Interestingly, Michael Behe's tedious little book Darwin's Black Box says that the designer can't be another part of the material universe like aliens because they would still be"irreducibly complex" and some intelligence would have designed them as well. The Designer has to be an entity that is outside the designed universe. So, while Behe never outright says "the designer is God" he makes damn sure his book can not be used to draw any other conclusion.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:42 PM on September 3, 2005
Interestingly, Michael Behe's tedious little book Darwin's Black Box says that the designer can't be another part of the material universe like aliens because they would still be"irreducibly complex" and some intelligence would have designed them as well. The Designer has to be an entity that is outside the designed universe. So, while Behe never outright says "the designer is God" he makes damn sure his book can not be used to draw any other conclusion.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:42 PM on September 3, 2005
Okay, I will shut up right after this one.
Dr. Kent Hovind, the young-earth Creationist and former High School science teacher, in a series of educational DVDs in which he debates "biologists, anthropologists, geologists, and even atheists [who] can offer no evidence for the unsubstantiated theory of evolution." --
(dinosauradventureland.com >> Watch Videos >> Leviathan)
And this is why there can be no constructive debate between Creationists and scientists.
posted by mumble at 5:01 AM on September 4, 2005
Dr. Kent Hovind, the young-earth Creationist and former High School science teacher, in a series of educational DVDs in which he debates "biologists, anthropologists, geologists, and even atheists [who] can offer no evidence for the unsubstantiated theory of evolution." --
(dinosauradventureland.com >> Watch Videos >> Leviathan)
And this is why there can be no constructive debate between Creationists and scientists.
posted by mumble at 5:01 AM on September 4, 2005
>I'm looking for some ...sites... where ID/
>Creationists & evolutionary scientists debate
>each other without rancour,
That's kind of like asking a horse breeder to discuss blood lines with someone who believes in unicorns. ID is just theology trying to somehow sneak itself in as a new branch of science. Luckily for them the intelligent designer itself (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) bestows its noodly benevolence on the sneakey and the honest alike.
posted by Ken McE at 8:08 PM on September 4, 2005
>Creationists & evolutionary scientists debate
>each other without rancour,
That's kind of like asking a horse breeder to discuss blood lines with someone who believes in unicorns. ID is just theology trying to somehow sneak itself in as a new branch of science. Luckily for them the intelligent designer itself (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) bestows its noodly benevolence on the sneakey and the honest alike.
posted by Ken McE at 8:08 PM on September 4, 2005
Deepak Chopra is an IDer, or at least thinks the theory has merit, and he is agnosic or something.
posted by delmoi at 7:52 AM on September 8, 2005
posted by delmoi at 7:52 AM on September 8, 2005
How can you believe in ID and not believe in the Christian God? Easy. There does not need to be any connection at all! Those that say it does assumes that everyone who believes that this, what we call "Earth," is not "all there is," must accept the Christian Bible by default.
I was, but am no longer, a Christian. However, I fully accept that what we call "science" is not the be all and end all of truth about what can and/or cannot "happen." There are too many things that cannot be explained by science that point to another "dimension," if you will - not to Christianity - but to something that is beyond our understanding.
The argument by fundamentalist evolutionists that ID means "Christian God" is dishonest. It's not a Christian God or "science" debate. It is not that black and white. It is a debate about "science" versus anybody else that believes there is more to our development as human beings and more to our intricate system of life on Earth than evolutionary accident.
Creationists would say they KNOW the answer and it's all in the Bible. Evolutionists say they KNOW the answer and it's all in the science. Many of us who believe in Intelligent Design believe that there is some kind of design and designer - but we don't necessarily know the answers! That is somehow deemed "unscientific." But using that logic, all dreamers and thinkers since the beginning of time who were scorned for "lack of scientific evidence," and later offered pioneering new thought in all areas of science were just unscientific simpletons UNTIL they could PROVE IT. Many of us in ID believe that there are many things that point to a designer. Many of us believe that study and research will allow for one day ID to be accepted and scientific fact. Of course, some "scientists" want to shut down the discussion and close the mind to anything that looks at another "dimension" beyond science. That's fine, but stop the dishonest talk that ID=Christian God. That is simply untrue.
posted by Independent Scholarship at 4:16 PM on September 9, 2005
I was, but am no longer, a Christian. However, I fully accept that what we call "science" is not the be all and end all of truth about what can and/or cannot "happen." There are too many things that cannot be explained by science that point to another "dimension," if you will - not to Christianity - but to something that is beyond our understanding.
The argument by fundamentalist evolutionists that ID means "Christian God" is dishonest. It's not a Christian God or "science" debate. It is not that black and white. It is a debate about "science" versus anybody else that believes there is more to our development as human beings and more to our intricate system of life on Earth than evolutionary accident.
Creationists would say they KNOW the answer and it's all in the Bible. Evolutionists say they KNOW the answer and it's all in the science. Many of us who believe in Intelligent Design believe that there is some kind of design and designer - but we don't necessarily know the answers! That is somehow deemed "unscientific." But using that logic, all dreamers and thinkers since the beginning of time who were scorned for "lack of scientific evidence," and later offered pioneering new thought in all areas of science were just unscientific simpletons UNTIL they could PROVE IT. Many of us in ID believe that there are many things that point to a designer. Many of us believe that study and research will allow for one day ID to be accepted and scientific fact. Of course, some "scientists" want to shut down the discussion and close the mind to anything that looks at another "dimension" beyond science. That's fine, but stop the dishonest talk that ID=Christian God. That is simply untrue.
posted by Independent Scholarship at 4:16 PM on September 9, 2005
Response by poster: I do acknowledge that science doesn't have all the answers, but suspect that if the human race survives, it will ultimately know enough. By that I mean that we will - even if it takes another million years - know how the universe was created.
Currently, science can explain very well to me how life on earth evolved from simple organisms to animals and primates and man. I am happy with that.
But the explanations referring to the big bang are, as yet, to this atheist layman, still little better than myths: I have to say that I accept the uncertainty around answers to the questions like 'what came before the big bang?' But those answers are simply beyond my comprehension. I weigh up the different explanations and plump for science every time.
It's a judgement which I'm led to because I trust science more than religion, because so far in my life, physicists have told me fewer lies than priests.
Thanks all for your input.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:40 AM on September 10, 2005
Currently, science can explain very well to me how life on earth evolved from simple organisms to animals and primates and man. I am happy with that.
But the explanations referring to the big bang are, as yet, to this atheist layman, still little better than myths: I have to say that I accept the uncertainty around answers to the questions like 'what came before the big bang?' But those answers are simply beyond my comprehension. I weigh up the different explanations and plump for science every time.
It's a judgement which I'm led to because I trust science more than religion, because so far in my life, physicists have told me fewer lies than priests.
Thanks all for your input.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:40 AM on September 10, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
I'm not saying there aren't any religious scientists--far from it--I'm just saying that there's really no grounds for debate. You'd be as likely to find a forum for scientists and forteans to debate the existence of vampires and the chupacabra.
posted by Tuwa at 12:26 PM on September 3, 2005