Should anyone debate creationists and young earth pseudo science?

Question

I propose a boycott on debating any of this propaganda science until a creation "scientist" publishes a paper that details testable proofs and provides hard evidence. This paper should be subject to review by the scientific community the same way every scientific theory is tested. If the creationists cannot do this then they are admitting that creationism is not science. If we debate this nonsense before they have provided any proof we give their argument an air of credibility that it doesn't deserve.

Either they give with the proof or we don't want to talk about it. When a creationist wins a nobel prize they can teach this crap in schools.

What science will be safe from biblical interpretation if we don't do something. First its evolution, now its the young earth thing with dinosuars and humans living together like the Flintstones. What's next? Another the flat earth is the center of the universe philosophy?

Isn't that museum insane? There will be a Rally for Reason outside of it here soon.

Answer 1

No, there would be no point in such debates, since these issues are ones based in faith, not science. So the debators would not be speaking the same language. There are far more engaging and less painful ways to spend your time, like having a root canal or putting your penis through a meat grinder, or shoving sharp needles under your fingernails (or worst of all.............eating liver!).

Answer 2

You may not approve of my answer or vote it as being the best one, but I will give you one anyway. I am a scientist of 35 years and a very respected one. I reached an impasse in college when I proposed that the theory of evolution was incorrect. Instead, I proposed that the discrepency between Creation and Evolution lies instead in Einsteins theory of relativity. The Earth was supposed to be created in six days, but further investigation says that God's time is not our time. I presented that using the theory of relativity that each stage of creation lined up perfectly with the existence of the dinosaurs and of man. I also successfully presented difficulties in the idea that there is a different evolutionary track between a white man, an African man, and an Asian man. Any discrepency was reconciled by the finding that such differences were a result of genetic mutation and not that of being a new species. Man, regardless of background, has 39 chromosomes. Just like a white fox or a red fox is still a fox. In the end, although there were disagreements between myself and some members of the board, my theory that the world may have been created in six days by showing that time was relative, whether it be days, years, centuries, or eons was accepted and not proven to be false.

I don't need to defend myself against scientists who say that I am wrong in my thinking anymore than I need to defend myself against Christians who say that I am wrong for being a scientist. Scientists said that Moses could not have parted the Red Sea until it was discovered that a volcanic collapse caused a tsunami which caused the water to recede and then rush in destroying the Pharoahs army. Regardless of me being a Christian, I will always be a scientist. Perhaps both can reconcile just as Sigmund Freud said "Let psychology and psychiatry go their own path - one day they will meet."

Answer 3

It might be worthwhile to concider why evolution is not controversial in Europe, which is where the theory started. The short answer is that Europe is far more secular than America. Church and state are separate here, but this is not true for church and culture. Looking deeper, perhaps it is the fact creationism tends to justify the exploitation of nature so pervasive in American culture. It is far easier to abuse one's environment under the misconception one is completely separate from it.

Americans will continue to debate evolution as long as there is free speech. Maybe someday isolationism and ignorance will end. Once Americans can learn to look into this country instead of only out of it, maybe everyone will come to realize how ridiculous a cowboy riding a triceritops is - especially as a museum display.

Answer 4

In olden days, it was the religious authorities that proposed the boycotting. If scientist were to do the same, would they really be any better?

Science does NOT have to be safe from biblical interpretation, since biblical interpretion is just that-an attempt of people to explain their universe in a moral perspective.

Sorry you don't like the flintstones and dinosaur-human conjectured stories. No one ever claimed they were anything but, and remember that you would have never been able to experience them if science had not developed the means to do so.

Your last paragraph seems contradictory. Do you approve of anything?

Answer 5

This has been the case for a long time now. Scientists almost never debate YECs, nor have since the 60's and 70's. Duane Gish I believe was the last YEC that really debated scientists, but he would use so many rhetorical tactics that it became clear that there was little use in debating such people.

Answer 6

I agree that it's wise to avoid debating with pseudo-scientists on their own terms - "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference".

On the other hand, scientists and educators need to be proactive in explaining the scientific perspective. Science needs people to act as champions and popularizers to counterbalance the pseudo-scientists who are actively promoting and lobbying for their point of view. You can't be elitist and not care what the uneducated masses think, because those are the people who will vote nonsense into the schools if you cede them to the cretinists.

Answer 7

An axiomatic system is no stronger than its founding postulates. Anything can be derived (e.g., Aristotle), but is it true?

The biblical value of pi is exactly three - stated in two places, small by 4.72%. Ancient Egyptians, East Indians, and Chinese did better than that. How easy is it to get a good value of pi? 355/113 is too large by 0.0849 parts-per-million. God is crap.

(physical reaity) - (empirical reality) = faith

1) Anything that supports faith supports faith.
2) Anything that ignores faith supports faith.
3) Anything that contradicts faith supports faith - test of faith!
4) Anybody who criticizes faith is thereby proven to be unqualfied to comment. Critics must be killed lest God be offended.

In the whole of human history across the entire planet, not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission. Test of faith!

Answer 8

Why debate at all? Let them believe what they believe, and you believe what you believe.

By the way, Answers in Genesis, the new multimillion dollar creationist museum in, I think, Hebron, Kentucky opens in 4 days. I understand that it has been put together very professionally, whether or not you accept their belief.

Answer 9

Why debate? Let them teach creationism in schools! While we're at it, let's teach magic, alchemy, astrology, numerology, voodoo, and phrenology. I bet that'll increase our academic standing in the world. Also, if we teach creationism, we must teach that the world is flat, because that was what they believed in when they wrote the bible.

Oh dear! Let's not travel on ships less we fall off the edge of the world! Let's not fly in planes less we breach heaven's pearly gates!

Answer 10

Young Earthers are master debaters. I sure wish that they were as good at science as they are at yanking the media and w-nking the public.