Lots of blogscussions on evo vs creationism the last couple of days due to
Bush's misguided comments about Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC). Let me say upfront that as someone who has been involved in this issue for several years, creationists are a lot more savvy than you might think. If you aren't comfortable in a wide range of scientific fields, they will eat you up in a face to face to debate. While you were learning about biology, they've been talking in front of cheering congregations. While you may have read Dawkins or Gould or Zimmer, they've been perfecting multimedia presentations. While you've been learning science, they've been learning how to do one thing and one thing only: Make you look like an idiot. That being said, I have a few suggestions and resources from right here on Dkos you may be unaware of which might help you avoid the classical traps creationists lay. For some light reading in between OH updates, read on.
(To see a real evolutionary biologist disussing this, check out today's post on Pharyngula.)
Note- if you're not willing to put in the study time for debating IDCist Billbob, you'd better be careful doing so in public. Because that's
all the theocon Billbobs of the nation do. It isn't a hobby for them, it's their livelihood. They sit around all day and get paid to cook up ways to deceive people into believing that their ultrafundamentalist flat earthism is scientific, patriotic, and of course, Godly. Then they go out and test it day after day to see what cons work the best, and refine them. Few of us are willing after all to spend years learning the underlying science and mathematics, for the sole purpose that we can be useful targets in the debate for IDC shills to tar and feather in front of cheering fundies. Whether it's a big public debate, or a one-on-one discussion with a creationist or a creationism sympathizer, the biggest mistake one can make is to go charging off with science. The predators of the neo-right feed on folks which have usually been led to believe that science (And by extension critical analysis) is inherently atheistic and anti-God. You must defang this subterfuge first and foremost.
Evolution (Biology): 1) From the view of genetics "A change in the allele frequencies within a population over time', 2) diversification/speciation from common ancestors over time ... (You'd be simply amazed to know how many big name dictionaries get this wrong).
By far the biggest weapon in the creationist arsenal is dishonesty, followed by dishonesty's siblings, conflation, obfuscation, and misdirection. Closely related to those are the same staples you find in the Rovian Tool Kit. Smearing, innuendo, and avoidance.
The most effective weapon they employ using those techniques is the false dichotomy (Read dishonesty) that evolution=atheism. Once that idea has been planted in the minds of your audience or readers, anything you say, no matter how true, how researched, or how eloquently stated, will fall on deaf ears. The code words they use are "materialism, Darwinism, randomness, humanism, secularism' and so on. To you these may mean one thing, to the theistic victim the creationist has in his sites they mean atheism and even Satanism.
Response: 1. Why do you think God can't use evolutionary methods? 2. Wouldn't theistic evolution be evidence for a Creator's brilliance?
Folks, we can play the name game also. Whenever you refer to creationists/IDCists use the term 'flat earther'. "My opponent representing the flat earthers ... "
If they claim they don't believe in a flat earth feign total innocence and say with great sarcasm "Of course you don't! It doesn't mean you believe in a flat earth, it just means like flat earthers you deny science and simple observation! It's a group term like Darwinist or materialist", and smile an evil smile only they can see; wink at them. And then keep on using it, in fact be sure and refer to their position or themselves as a 'flat-earther' immediately just to drive the point home that you're onto the scam they're perpetrating and you're playing by their rules now.
Even worse, if you want to burn them up and down, pipe up with, "Isn't it true that other religious extremists in primitive nations, the Taliban and Islamic Radicals, agree with you on creationism and flat earthism?
The fact is evolution is no more atheistic than geology or astronomy. Evolution is consistent with a Creator just as Plate Tectonics or super nova are. It's not evidence for God, it's not evidence against God; Science in general is neither unless your version of Gods/Goddesses is some kind of primitive volcano deity or a being which dwells in the sun and clouds.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Evolution usually means two things; A theory which explains how a population might split and diversify to the point that there is observable, gross, physical difference between the two. And it also means common descent. The average guy usually means the latter concept, that humans and other creatures descended from common ancestors. The theory of evolution and common descent are two separate things, but the creationist will often use an area of weakness in one to attack the other.i.e conflation.
It does not mean the origin of life from nonliving precursors, it does not mean the origin of the earth or the solar system or the universe. If a creationist says it means any of those things they're lying, and they almost certainly know they're lying if they've been doing it for any length of time in public: Dishonesty.
Response: "How about we stipulate for the purposes of your next response that God created the universe or the earth or the first life form, how does that negate the idea of common descent?"
It doesn't matter if Hitler, Gandhi, the BTK Killer, Stalin, or Jesus Christ himself endorsed evolution as far as its validity. It doesn't matter if Darwin was or was not a Christian. It doesn't matter if a given scientists lied about something or cheated on his wife or was gay. That's all smearing. Don't fall for that bait.
There is no scientific theory of ID in regard to the origin of biodiversity from earlier organisms. This oft repeated IDCist lie is so pervasive major newspapers fall for it routinely and even state it in headlines on front pages as in: "Local School-board Votes on Intelligent Design Theory to be Taught Alongside Evolution".
A scientific theory can in principle be tested. It can in principle be shown false. To do that it has to make testable predictions. As soon as your creationist mentions the 'theory of ID" ask him point blank, interrupting him if necessary over and over with "What is the scientific theory of ID and what are the testable prediction of ID in the context of biodiversity, and what observations could in principle falsify it?" Then wrap that up if you get a chance with something like:
Reponses: "We know of only one intelligent species that design organisms, and that's us. When we design organisms we use artificial selection and we've managed to turn wild grass into corn and wheat, and wolves into poodles doing it hat way. Why does your alleged Intelligent Design (And really lay on the patronizing tone of voice when you say Intelligent Design and make the scary quote gesture) reject the one and only form of ID we KNOW works? If we puny humans can do that in a few thousand years to dogs and corn, why can't God do the same thing over billions of years with whales and people?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no significant research being done on Intelligent Design in the context of evolutionary biology. The Intelligent Design Creationism orgs are simply political lobbies and churches who tour the nation talking to church groups and schoolboards; they're advertising execs. There are no labs, no peer reviewed work which has contributed anything to the corpus of science, nothing at all.
There is research being done in detecting intelligence in the annals of cryptography and even in the Search for Extraterrestrial Life. Your opponent may use that to give himself credibility.
Response: What is the methodology of detecting non human design in biological organisms and what testable predictions does it make? (I can't emphasize enough that this is the Achilles heel of IDC. They simply do not have a theory at all).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another trick they like to use is to direct the discussion to obscure, complex mathematics such as information theory. Often brought up with statements like "Life is too complex and has too much information to be the result of randomness or chance! Complex system don't self generate!"
Response: "Well 'm no information theorist, but do I really need to be (Turn towards audience and smile)? Anyone who's made an omelet and seen a chick hatch from an egg KNOWS that complicated chicken developed from a simple embryo all by it's lonesome ... unless you're claiming there are little dwarves in there building it from scratch! So that routine event utterly invalidates the flat-earthist claim that 'complex things not developing form simple ones"!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The last one I'll cover is the 'Teach both ideas' meme. The response to that could be something along the lines of "But we do teach all kinds of creation stories in churches, Mosques, online, at Native American schools, in private schools. What you're asking for is not to present those various allegories but for scientists to be forced to endorse your flat-earth views and pretend it's valid science. IOW, you want teachers to lie to our kids!"
These are just a few bullet points to help you understand that you're not powerless against this slick PR campaign/assault against science mounted by the extremists.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's some more relevant articles from my archived material on Kos:
A review of the various types of Creationism including the two most common you're likely to encounter here in the US: IDC and Young Earth Creationism (YEC). It's a fun easy read.
Primer on Common Descent written for the laymen and briefly covering the major points of observed evidence for common ancestry. Lots of links.
Whooping ass on Creationist Rude Pundit Style for those enjoy a WWF Creationist SMACKDOWN format.
Background from the Kos/DarkSyde archives on a few known Creationists and their particular spiels:
William Demsbki & Michael Behe: ID, Irreducible Complexity and Demsbki's explanatory Filter
Jonathon Wells & Stephen Meyer (IDCists)
Phil Johnson, father of the modern IDC movement
Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh (Young Earth Creationist fruitcakes)
External Resources:
Talk Origins: Pretty much every standard argument and spiel by ID/Creationists can be found here, written by topnotch scientists for the layperson.
National Center for Science Education
The Panda's Thumb: Group Blog featuring many of the long time contributors to the Talk Origins Archive.
Pharyngula run by my comrade, DR Paul Myers. This is the highest traffic, sole author, science Blog on the Internet. See the Blog Roll page for a list of recommended evolution/creationism blogs.
The MSN Evolution Vs Creationism Community