Fighting the fight

[Glenn Dawes]

Hello all and happy new year!

Over the holiday period I took the opportunity to surf around older threads on IIS and found the discussions on ID vs. Evolution interesting (please Mr Moderators hear me out).

I have fought ID concepts for many years being touched by creationism through friends and family members. Also having reasonable knowledge of the bible from my teens and having a scientific background touching on chemistry, geology and astronomy (sorry, biology is my weak area) I’ve always thought I’ve had a reasonable understanding of both sides. In my ‘battles’ I now realise I have made mistakes but gained a few insights, which I would like to share with my fellow IISers.

Rule 1. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER try and convince creationists they are wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes, that’s enough capital letters and too many exclamation marks don’t go astray here either). Reasons:
1) Most creationists I have known have had no background in science or the scientific method. So as far as they are concerned the evolutionists might as well be pushing another religion (eg how successful would a Muslim be trying to convert a devoted Christian to Islam)
2) At the best they will treat your wonderfully thought out arguments (which you are so proud of) as a test of their faith (at the worst they will be think of you as an agent of the devil!). Even if they don’t say so.
3) It has been drilled into them there are too many holes in the Evolution argument to take anything you say as serious (yes, we know there are gaps but does one throw the baby out with the bathwater?).

Rule 2. Many Scientists are apathetic to ID thinking that the followers are as harmless as natives putting pins into voodoo doll. Many refuse to recognise the potential damage this could cause if ID got into mainstream education. I once went to a creationism / evolution debate (never again). The scientist had his facts right but there was something like 3 evolutionists to 200 creationists. There was no interest from the anti ID side to attend and give support. You can guess what happened to the poor scientist – I’m sure if he’d been a lamb he would have been on a spit by the end. We crept out being prepared to do a ‘Peter’ and deign any knowledge of the guy if we were confronted!

Rule 3. The don’t step on someone’s faith toes! (The most difficult one)
I have a lot of interesting discussions with my wife including how misguided astrologers are. However, when it comes to criticising ID she goes quiet. Not because she disagrees with me but she feels I shouldn’t knock someone’s faith. The sensitive reactions, seen on previous threads, attest to this. I think there is a big difference between questioning someone’s belief and personal attacks.

Rule 4. The ID people are cashed up, and live by the line ‘spread the word’. They will use every resource available – even being sneaky. Have you noticed the google add that is on one of the previous threads? Go to:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ht=creationism

And look under the Aust S&T advertisement on the right. Here’s the link anyway.

http://ucg.org.au/offers/ev.asp?gcli...FSLiYAodEEmquQ

There you go, even IIS is pushing the ‘Good News’! (Even if Mike S doesn’t know it)

Rule 5. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem! (I know an old line but appropriate here)
In recent years I have been guilty of saying/doing nothing. After knocking my head against rule 1 in my early years, for too long, I felt all I achieved was getting well meaning but misguided people upset. However, I am now a strong believer in doing a bit of ‘back burning’ in the school system (or in the community as a whole). I suggest (as a start):

* If you know any teachers make them aware of what is going on. I would target those with a science background (If you know any).

* There are science teacher’s magazines.. Well at least one. I have the contact details if anyone wants them. It would be interesting to know their feelings or would PC scare them off?

* Letters to the Federal Education minister, Brendan Nelson, pointing out to him that ID is not science and shouldn’t be taught.

* What are the Australian Skeptics doing about this?

* If you are serious about attacking the ID’ers, the web is full of good sites such as ‘Talk Origins’ for background info. There was a good little book published in 2006 called Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Why all the fuss? By Peter Cook ($13) which explains both sides in an unbiased fashion. I got it from A&R.

I have deliberately avoided discussing any specific ID vs. Evolution issues here for I think most of the basics have been brought up previously and I feel it doesn’t achieve anything further going over old ground. It’s time to act.

Yours in the name of Science.

Glenn

[stephenmcnelley]

Why do people seem to need to form opinions and formulate hard conclusions on everything they read? to stamp a little bit of certainty into their lives and to contribute to our collective big picture understanding somehow by their personal identity ?
Seems a good way to get a bit lost along the way judging by the human state and division within this world of people.

Cant see why the two concepts and theories would not somwhow be symbiotic with all life's biological development (which is a form of engineering none the less) it seems beyond our immediate capacity to quantitively reckon its rythm and reason over the long evolutionary term, rather than by our relatively short term perspective which is a commom human cultural feature- its only people that create theorhetical divisions and individual distinctions during our relatively short lives.
Our children and future generations might benefit more from a probing and introspective education framework rather than being told to digest yet more books of 'hard facts'- Our co-operative science is still in its global infancy as are our rough notions of creationism, that should be warning enough!

[xelasnave]

The ratio of 3 to 200 probably carries thru the whole community unfortunately if the truth be known.
But the good news is if we get ID into our schools there wont be a teacher shortage as we will be able to use people without any background in science to teach.. in fact anyone will be able to teach with only one book.
I dont like the chances of stopping it frankly.. I mean Mr B is an educated man a very smart man and he lends it support..who can question that? Sortta makes it right or politically correct at least, sorry politically smart.
I have no objection to ID being taught in schools just make sure that it is not in the guise of science, perhaps in philophosey classes, no one could object to that but no doubt both sides will.
ID is better than witchcraft a predominate tv theme these days.
alex

[iceman (Mike)]

A very well thought out post, Glenn.

Rule 1. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER try and convince creationists they are wrong

I'd agree with that, and in particular it covers both sides of the argument. It seems in most debates of evolution vs creationism, noone will ever convince the other side to change their mind. Everyone goes over the same old arguments over and over again having to get the last say, without any hope of "converting" anyone to their way of thinking.

That's when people start getting personal, attacking the people not the ideas, and why threads like this have had a habit of being locked.

However I hope that we're all mature enough to have a debate without resorting to personal attacks, so I don't plan for this thread to be locked.

Rule 3. The don’t step on someone’s faith toes!

I'd definitely agree with this too - people obviously get very defensive about their faith and will defend it to the death as it's what they believe and in some cases makes them who they are and how they live.


Interestingly, there was an interview on Sydney ABC 702 this morning with someone called Richard Williamson (I think) who was talking about the evolution vs creationist debate, as well as religions in general (he was an aethiest). It was a good interview, I was enjoying listening to it, and then all of a sudden he got cut off and they didn't get him back.

I suspect someone up high in the ABC didn't like what he was hearing (or they got a complaint from a creationist in big business) and they cut the interview.

Conspiracy theory, but i'm sticking with it.

[Doug]

Conspiracy theory, but i'm sticking with it.

Mike, why not ring the ABC and enquire?
Maybe if he was passionate enough about his position he might have said something that contravened the Broadcast act and up popped the 7 sec delay cutout thingy.........maybe. One can never be sure unless unbiased research is undertaken. Is this germane to this thread? If you think about it........yes it is.

Cheers,
Doug

[matt]

Originally Posted by iceman

Interestingly, there was an interview on Sydney ABC 702 this morning with someone called Richard Williamson (I think) who was talking about the evolution vs creationist debate, as well as religions in general (he was an aethiest). It was a good interview, I was enjoying listening to it, and then all of a sudden he got cut off and they didn't get him back.

I suspect someone up high in the ABC didn't like what he was hearing (or they got a complaint from a creationist in big business) and they cut the interview.

Conspiracy theory, but i'm sticking with it.

This is an aspect of the nature of the ID camp I find very concerning.

It's no good believing in anything so feverishly that you are incapable or even unwilling to listen to the views of your opposition.

I think it's a poor sign when you feel the need to completely silence anyone with a differing view...

Perhaps you're worried they're going to sound too believable and reasonable and argue their case with science and provable fact?

[ving (David)]

Originally Posted by matt

It's no good believing in anything so feverishly that you are incapable or even unwilling to listen to the views of your opposition.

ID say they are right, Evos say they are right... the fact is that there are holes in both arguments. People should keep an open mind to all sides of the question at hand because niether side has been proven 100% correct. who knows, maybe both are right? evolution within creation?

peace out bros!

[matt]

Peace to you too, Bro!

I guess my big concern is with reports the current US Administration is looking to institute ID as a "science" and have it included in school curriculum, as such.

There are those (predominantly in the powerful US Bible Belt) who would have real scientists tarred and feathered and run out of town as heretics.

These are the people who won't even tolerate the sound of a non-religious dissenting voice.

I totally agree with you Ving that we all need to keep an open mind. All of us. Including zealous devotees of ID.

Again ... peace ... maaaan

[avandonk]

When I get someone knocking on my door and declaring they have some of the answers and then refer to all the scientific peer reviewed journals as a source. I may then let them in.
My only real concern is these people of faith are the ones inappropriately forcing their beliefs into areas that have nothing to do with any faith. At the moment some parts of current scientific thought are being questioned by their beliefs. They should simply supply the evidence.
They seem to act as if 'they' are under attack by science. I think the converse is true.
I am also amazed that somone elses precepts of faith are not to be questioned as some sancrosanct 'fact' of faith. If they want to get into the discussion of ideas and proof then everything is open to scientific scrutiny.
The real problem with this 'controversy' is that one side wants to hide behind
an impenetrable wall and then snipe from behind this wall under the guise of scientific arguement with totally unsupportable 'evidence' or even worse misquoted half truths.

When my scientific beliefs are as sancrosanct as theirs, we may have a level playing field.

Don't think this is not important. This is not about the TRUTH, it is about power via the votes of the uninformed.

Bert

[matt]

Originally Posted by avandonk

The real problem with this 'controversy' is that one side wants to hide behind an impenetrable wall and then snipe from behind this wall under the guise of scientific arguement with totally unsupportable 'evidence' or even worse misquoted half truths.

When my scientific beliefs are as sancrosanct as theirs, we may have a level playing field.

Don't think this is not important. This is not about the TRUTH, it is about power via the votes of the uninformed.

Spot-on, Bert. Spot-on.

A solid gold handshake is in the mail to you, Sir.

[Kal (Andrew)]

The debate of evolution Vs Immaculate Design is about as productive as a debate of Christianity Vs Islam. At the end of the day, it is impossible for either side to come out ahead. We all have our own beliefs, and there is no real point in trying to prove the merits of one belief over the other. To allow a debate can only lead to one result, which is why there is good reason to lock all threads on this topic.

We live in a secular country, and I love Australia because of this. We embrace any belief be it athiest christian islam buddhist hindu etc. So lets keep any religious related discussions off these boards.

[matt]

Hmm.

That approach is as problematic as it is potenitally helpful.

As far as keeping any religion based debate off these boards?

Up until now, Kal, that has pretty much been de rigeur.

However, this is an internet website with many and varied fora where members can discuss everything and anything relating to this fabulous hobby/obsession.

And like it or not, the evolution-creationism debate does have some significant interest and impact on many people participating at this website.

If it's your choice to turn away from the debate, that's OK. Just don't seek to stifle or constrain those who want to participate.

Just my 2c worth

[Kal (Andrew)]

Personally, I wouldn't turn away from the thread. Any thread which has the potential to break down into a flame war before being locked is usually quite entertaining.

Yes it does have implications to the hobby we love. But the potential benefits gained by allowing discussion are outweighed by the potential conflicts and divide that could also be caused.

Think of it this way, do you honestly think it will bring the IIS community closer together, or will it simply cause a divide?

[matt]

So you'd like to stay in touch with this thread in case a fight breaks out, which would be "entertaining"?

I won't comment on what that signifies.

I don't think the purpose of a healthy and vigorous debate necessarily is to bring anyone closer together. Perhaps, if the 2 sides refrain from getting personal or attacking each other, they both might leave with a little food for thought and some enlightenment. Maybe not. But does that mean we shouldn't sometimes engage each other from completely opposite sides of the "divide"?

But I think any really great divisions which exist between members are already there. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to understand each other a little better.

Anyway...what hope is there when people can't even agree whether or not the issue should be debated?

[sheeny (Al)]

Good thread and discussion guys!

Some views are promoted for political reasons, it is a fight for power. The apathy that is often displayed by "scientists" is probably because science is less political than religion.

I am concerned when:
1. The person and their views are not respected.
2. A person's views are not tolerated.

So I don't mind what you believe, I'm happy for you to believe it, and I'm happy to debate and explore and argue different philosophies, but don't try to change my mind, views or beliefs. My beliefs are mine, and no one else's to change - so if someone tries to "convert" me I will resist, as everyone should (that's just my belief! ). Hell, I've walked into more than one shop to buy a specific item and walked out without it because a salesman started the heard sell!

Be wary of the politics!

I also think exploring a lot of ID v science debates via written text can be quite dangerous. It is impossible to judge the nuances a speaker provides from a remote writer, and in a face to face debate you can judge when to back off... The level of understanding is easier to control face to face. So sometimes blocking threads is not a bad thing to do.

Al.

[xelasnave]

There is no problem. If ID wants to be a science let it that means it throws the door open to the rules of science... scientific method, peer review (all scientists in the field... although a field that presumably all peers will have the same view) experiment etc etc...Its not easy growing up to become a science there are huge responsibilities that if ID wants to join the club they must except.. they could end up proving themselves wrong. After careful consideration of the implications of the requirements of science maybe ID will properly elect for the class I first suggested.
On the positive lets see it as spiritual folk wanting respect for their beliefs rather than ridicule.. They can achieve respect as a science by simply doing what everyone else in the game must do..come up with facts, observations, proofs and just to be difficult some math to cement it all together.
Now as I cant do that with my gravity rain idea it reamins in the belief basket.. I accept that and respect science for its firm entry rules to the club.
But if you are a scientist being of whatever school you must already know the rules of the game... I will entertain "the science"if it entertains the rules of science.
However as others have obseved ID is not at the level that it can claim to be a science as it does not subscribe to the rules of the very club to which it seeks to belong.. it therefore belongs in the other class room.
Observe the dress rules and you can come in ..otherwise no entry.
But its the politics at play that should be of concern .. when someone like MrB lips move look whose hand is up his back.
alex

[Doug]

I believe the case for/against ID, for/against evolution is not being presented in a balanced fashion. ID is not on the table as a science in the strictest sense of the word. What the ID proponents want to see is ID taught alongside of evolution as a plausible cause for those things which science has no hard evidence for within the framework of evolutionary thinking. There is a lot of talk about scientific proof, yet none is ever actually provided, because none actually exists. By proof, I mean hard scientific data that can not be refuted. There are many equally qualified scientists on both sides of the debate, and by suitably qualified, I mean having PhDs in there respective fields. To say that those pushing for ID to be taught, are pushing it as science, seems to be not really comprehending the issues.

I have attended a few lectures by creationists and I'd have to say that I could not agree with everything said by the speaker, but on the other hand there were some present who clearly were opposed to his position. The notable thing was that objections raised were centered on fields of science outside the speaker's area of expertise. It seems there exists unreasonable bias in both camps, but to misrepresent some-one's position is a sad thing.

Doug

[xelasnave]

The thought just occured to me I have never heard these questions asked or answered.. Does the ID scientist site how "the design" comes about..is the "design" attributed to an entity or nature?...If nature all may be able to live together.. if an entity will there be a fight between different scientific factions for their "entity" to be chief designer. AND specifically I have wondered exactly what a science course course in ID would cover by way of introduction.
Also I ask what scientific evidence exists for the evolution approach I mean what is the proof, have experiments shown that the strong survive and the weak fail? I think some fruit fly experiments have been conducted showing stuff but I cant recall if the results were for ID or Ev.
alex

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

There has been some very well thought out and carefully worded opinions in the posts above, but there has also been some blatent encapsulation.

Be careful when generalising one side or another. To give you an example, I will use myself. I am a believer in Creation and I am not afraid to say so. But I do not go for the ID proposal. As a Creationist, I also believe that the earth is MILLIONS, or even billions, of years old. This is in no way contrary to biblical writings. But this is not the website to go into that.

I personally have known highly educated Scientists who will not 100% categorically say one way or the other. Approx 90% of my friends are Athiests and they know what I believe and are fine with it. I also totally accept that they are happy in thier beliefs. It makes us no less of friends!

I totally enjoy visiting Bert who explains his beliefs and reasons, and I sit enthralled at not only his commitment to his beliefs, but his knowledge of his beliefs. Doesn't mean I have to agree (with some of his facts, I do), but I enjoy listening to his intelligent views.

Of the Christain friends I have, none of them believe that the world was created 6000 years ago! All share my same drive and thirst for knowledge of both Theological and Scientific aspects of the beginnings of 'it all'.

All I ask is if you intend to post intellectual comment in here, please do not wrap each side up in a packet marked 'Identical part, number 36890'. There are many shades of grey in all of us. Don't generalise. that's when I get my back up. Comments like 'all Creationists' or 'us Evolutionists' is like saying all dogs are black.

[fringe_dweller]

Originally Posted by Glenn Dawes

Rule 4. The ID people are cashed up, and live by the line ‘spread the word’. They will use every resource available – even being sneaky. Have you noticed the google add that is on one of the previous threads? Go to:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ht=creationism

And look under the Aust S&T advertisement on the right. Here’s the link anyway.

http://ucg.org.au/offers/ev.asp?gcli...FSLiYAodEEmquQ

There you go, even IIS is pushing the ‘Good News’! (Even if Mike S doesn’t know it)

that is seriously disturbing! thanks for pointing that out Glenn - as mentioned we need a change in US administration to really get clear of this stupid depressing era - I think there was a similar flare up of cretionism/fundamentalism during the 80's hardline conservative era of raygun, and it dissappeared with his presidency I believe - I think the scientist are just hoping its a fad that will go the same way when it loses legitimacy
by proxy when 'you know who's' is history - lets hope so!