Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

In thread Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some Faith presented some of her evidence and arguments for the great flood, and at one point (Message 176) PurpleDawn attempted to clarify the discussion by explaining to evolutionists how the debate looked from the perspective of someone not very familiar with science. My impression was that she thought the evolutionist demands appeared to some extent to be unreasonable, and that evolutionists often weren't clear about what evidence they wanted or why. She also thought she noted a condescending tone.The purpose of this thread is to examine what is wrong with typical evolutionist approaches to explaining their position, and I'd start off by raising the issue of evidence. PurpleDawn appeared to be saying that she sees a difference between presenting evidence versus showing how that evidence supports your position (she called it "proving your evidence", but I think I've captured her meaning).I think few if any of the science-minded on the evolution side would ever have anticipated such a criticism, but if PurpleDawn's perspective is widely shared by those unfamiliar with science, and I'd have to say that Faith obviously shares this view, then it might go a long way toward explaining why there is often such a large disconnect in these discussions.So I guess the place to start is to discuss how evolutionists might explain the difference between presenting evidence and showing how that evidence supports theory. I think to a lot of us that when Faith says, in effect, "The presence of fossils everywhere around the world is strong evidence for a global flood" that she may as well be saying, "That fire is hot and ice is cold is strong evidence for a global flood." In other words, we can't see how one (global flood) can in any way follow from the other (fossils everywhere).Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason. But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know?--Percy

I wasn't thinking of this thread as a place where evolutionists repeat claims of doing all that can reasonably be expected to convince the poor deluded and science-challenged creationists. PurpleDawn is not unsympathetic to the evolutionist position, yet she found it had weaknesses as expressed in that thread. If that thread is in any way typical, it could provide important clues to why scientists are good at convincing each other but not anyone else. Does everyone really believe we're doing the best that can be done? Or is there something we can learn?AbE: Faith is as frustrating to me as she is to everyone else. She's pushed me over the edge on several occasions. But just because Faith is being rude and illogical again doesn't mean we're doing everything right. Faith isn't the only one out there unconvinced by evolutionist evidence and arguments. If our only solution is a science education then evolution will probably always be viewed skeptically by the general public.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 03-07-2006 06:28 PM

Chiroptera referenced Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Any creationist who reads and understands it couldn't fail to be convinced, but few will read it and fewer will understand it. I'll confess that my own understanding of science and how it works was hard won. Though I already accepted science and its methods, it took many readings over many years to reach my current state of approximate understanding. A creationist reading Theobold's masterwork is likely to get little from it. It exists primarily as a reinforcement of evolutionist belief and as a reference source.A lot of this thread is devoted to explaining that Faith's claims that there is staggering evidence for the flood and that the worldwide distribution of fossils is evidence for the flood have no reasonable legs to stand on. It is true that Faith was being irrational, but it is also true, as some have noted, that she was trapped into that thread and asked a question already known to be one she couldn't answer. The result was predictable, and it's why almost before the thread had gotten started I'd requested assistance from AdminBuzsaw, who unforuntately must be tied up in the real world right now.But it wasn't Faith's position or behavior that sparked my interest, it was PurpleDawn's, who I don't think needs purple sunglasses. She says we're missing the mark. We can congratulate ourselves all we like, but it doesn't seem to getting the job done.Perhaps evolution needs its own 2LOT, an argument or evidence (or two or three) that disproves flood theory for anyone regardless of how poorly they understand science. It would differ in nature from the creationist 2LOT argument only by being accurate and correct.--Percy

I didn't really intend this thread as a discussion of what should and shouldn't have been done to constructively engage with Faith. There are so many ways to go wrong with Faith that I just don't see it worth exploring. It's like trying to balance a pea on the edge of a razor blade - yeah, if you work really hard at it you might succeed at keeping the pea in place for a second or two, and yeah if you zigged or zagged at just the right moment maybe you could have kept it balanced another split second, but in the end it's nobody's fault that it fell off. It was inevitable.What I was hoping to explore was where evolutionists are taking the wrong approach in presenting to creationists their evidence and interpretations.--Percy

Pursuing my own search for evolution's 2LOT, what we need in this context is a simple and effective argument against the flood. Perhaps this one would work: Suggestions for improvements?--Percy

Hi Faith,I didn't really propose this thread with the intention of discussing where anyone went wrong in the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread. I was more interested in exploring PurpleDawn's observations about the weakness of the evolutionist arguments, and in that regard you raise a very intriguing point here. I don't quote everything you quoted, but I think this is enough: I thought I was saying that from an uninformed perspective it might seem like a flood was responsible, but once you know the whole story it becomes clear a flood couldn't possibly have been the cause. If that is also your interpretation, could you explain why my statement seems like madness to you?--Percy

I was proposing a response to creationists in general to be delivered whenever the "sea shells on mountain tops" argument is advanced. I know you have a different view, and if you'd like to discuss it then the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread is probably the best place.--Percy

That's fine, we understand, you don't have to keep repeating this.Please keep in mind that at EvC Forum you are required to support your assertions. Though no one else feels you've supported your assertions, we understand that you believe you have. We haven't forgotten what you believe so there is no need to continue repeating your beliefs, and in fact it's against the Forum Guidelines if you're no longer willing to defend them. I think if you follow the Forum Guidelines and stay focused on the topic of discussion that it might diminish the chances of coming across characterizations of yourself that you don't find flattering.--Percy

I was under the impression that only creationists who believe that only a flood that covered the highest mountains, as is described in Genesis, would use this argument in support of the flood. Any creationists like yourself who understand that the mountains are not just covered in fossil shells but are *filled* with fossil shells would not advance this as an argument for the flood, since it is the same as the evolutionist argument. There's a different reply to your argument, but that's probably best taken to the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread.--Percy

Good observations, I'll think a bit about how they might be applied.--Percy

Wow! I wonder what the original was like! --Percy

In an attempt to bring to an end the off-topic portions of this discussion, let me provide what I hope will be a better response to this exchange between Faith and me: I guess I still don't understand where the madness comes in. We disagree about what can be tested and supported, and about whether explanations are ad hoc, but the mere presence of disagreement doesn't seem to merit classifying a position as "madness". Can you provide more clarification about why the evolutionist position on the flood seems like madness to you?--Percy

I think we've gained some good insights so far, but this quote from Message 65 is an example of another creationist approach that evolutionists have proven very unsuccessful in dealing with: My interpretation of this passage is that it is briefly summarizing the reasons for rejecting modern geology and accepting the flood explanation, and is stating that these reasons are more than adequate and that no more discussion is necessary.A reasonable presumption is that someone who doesn't want to discuss it anymore would stop posting. My own personal view of this passage is that the assertion of points one is not willing to defend is against the Forum Guidelines (see rule 4), but I thought I'd open it up for discussion to see if we can come up with any effective non-administrative strategies. What should be the approach with a creationist who is willing to repeat his position whenever called upon, but who is not willing to discuss or defend it?--Percy

Hi Faith,If you're interested and would like to give it a try, could I suggest returning to the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread and resuming the limestone layer part of the discussion with the intention of seeing if anything has been learned in this thread. I chose limestone layers because it can be discussed without introducing complicated issues, but if you'd prefer a different topic then that's fine, too.--Percy

Yes, we know, but you're violating the Forum Guidelines by making assertions you're not willing to defend. Just as the evolutionists in this thread are trying to answer the question, "Why is our approach not working," I think you could try asking yourself the same question.But that's actually another matter. My original question was whether anyone had any ideas for non-administrative ways of dealing with a creationist who insists on asserting their position but refuses to defend it. Even though you're one of those using this approach, that doesn't exclude you from helping find an answer. Any suggestions?--Percy