Should biologists debate with creationists/intelligent designers?

Question

I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said that debating with creationists gives the impression that there is a genuine scientific controversy over the origins of life.

But doesn't this give them a free reign? It seems that intelligent designers are gaining ground, and so in the mindset of most Americans there *is* a genuine scientific controversy. Shouldn't biologists launch a more impassioned defence of evolution and expose these frauds for the unscientific con-artists they are?

Sorry I meant to say that SJG recommended snubbing such debates but it's obvious the two answerers understood what I meant.

James P: A "theory" in science differs from how people use "theory" in common vernacular. Evolution is a fact. It does not require "faith" to accept a fact.

Answer 1

Confront and contradict, but not debate. Science questions are not decided by two guys standing up playing a crowd. In most cases when some science guy goes up against a professional standup evolution-denier, the science guy winds up looking silly because he plays by the rules while the evolution denier guy lies, misrepresents and exaggerates. Since these "debates" almost always happen in front of partisan fundamentalist crowds, there is no way for Evolution to come out ahead.
When "Intelligent design" was brought into court last year, the judge (a Bush appointed conservative) really carved up the ID guys and told them to get a life. That was the right forum. Instead of "debating" the right policy is to be vigilant and aggressive about fighting the possible insertion of ID religious doctrine into the school science classes.

Answer 2

I think most biologists feel like it is a waste of the time they could be using to do constructive things. Like others have said here, the creationists are showmen/showwomen and don't stick to the facts like a science person would.

Creationist have indeed had a free reign in the last 6 years, but I think average Americans are beginning to wake up and not be so complacent about what is going on.

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, has written several books about evolution and his latest, "The God Delusion" was on the New York Times best seller list for many, many weeks. Biologists may do better working to write books that can be understood by non-biologists than by publically debating creationists.

The membership in the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, WI has seen its membership soar in just the last year. This means (I hope) people are paying attention and realize that over-zealous religionist can do real harm.

The other thing each of us can do is to not let people around us talk creationism without letting them know we totally don't agree. (Not always easy to do, but if more of us find the courage, I think it will help - at least to get them to quit speading their myths)

Answer 3

Sure, if the evolutionists have all the facts and evidence as they claim, why would they be afraid to debate a creationists/ID. I'm still amazed that evolution is still recognized in science as the "theory of evolution" when there is so much evidence supporting there claims. And for those who want to attack the religious views of creationists, I will say that it takes way more faith to believe that time + chance + matter has produced the highly intelligent life we know as mankind today. Why have creationists had a good reign the past few years (as one of the answers to your question has stated)? Well, it's because the creationists have the best answers for the origin of life. As I read in a Time magazine article not long ago, more evolutionists are leaning to the Intelligent Design (even though they deny the God of the Bible, claiming rather a higher life form such as aliens). Listen, I know that most evolutionists are very highly intelligent people, they just choose to ignore the facts, because if there is a God, that would mean that they would have to be accountable for the way they live their lives. By the way, this is not an indictment that all or even most evolutionists live a wretched lifestyle. I know that this strays some from your question, but this is my answer to you. I reply with much respect to all who view regardless of their worldview.

Answer 4

Perhaps they should do something, but debating grants them the legitimacy they do not deserve. I was reading the work of some evolutionary biologist ( name escapes my decrepit mind ). His point was that creationist and ID types are much, much better at public relations than biologists.

Answer 5

no its two different types of thinking and are not necessarily contradictory. science is about observing, experimenting, measuring and drawing conclusions based on those steps. religion asks why are we here, morals, and what is the meaning of life (you can't measure that). There is not a compatible language between the two types of thinking to allow a debate.