Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”

I am somewhat interested. However, if this is a potentially profitable venture, I should think that if I undertook to do it I should get my slice of the profits, if any. Otherwise, this is the ultimate "will you do my homework?" thread.

I've been thinking about it.Basically, you're asking me to write a short book about evolution. Only you want this book to be repeatedly interrupted by someone so ignorant, deluded, dishonest and fanatical that he'll respond to everything I say by trying his damnedest to misunderstand and lie about what I'm saying. And you want me to keep on breaking off from addressing the intelligent people in my potential audience to talk to the nutjob instead. And you want the profits of this Augean labor to go to someone other than me.But suppose instead I was inclined to write a short book about evolution without incorporating the ravings of halfwits, and suppose I submitted it to a publisher so that I should benefit from writing it... then how would this course of action be inferior to your idea?If I did it my way, I'd have written a better book, earned more money, and educated more people. I don't see what you have to offer me.The only real inducement you could offer me is a debate against some genuinely prominent creationist liar like Duane Gish or Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. It would be a pleasure to publicly clean his clock.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We're either looking for someone with a penchant for understatement or someone who's seen a graviton.

I am still waiting to hear how I would profit from the publication of my work. Like all scientific statements, it's true so far. Similarly, one might say that it is impossible for pigs to fly, although one would recant on observing a flying pig. Well, that's an interesting fantasy. Might I invite you to consider the real world for a moment? Consider, for example, what would happen if you were to go and ask an expert on electromagnetism to write, for no recompense, and with no interest shown by any publisher, an introductory book on the subject, while a nutter with a grudge against reality continuously interrupts the textbook with misinformation and nonsense ... and all this for the potential profit of someone other than the expert (who has to do all the real work involved in the project) --- someone who is (apparently) more in sympathy with the nutter than the expert --- and see what sort of answer you get.Then try to explain to him that the reason he refuses, which he will, is because of the low "status or confidence level" of his subject. And if I was to educate "most Americans", I should want a particularly large sum of money as my reward. Oh, and maybe a statue.---Now, if you'll excuse me, I've heard that there's a forum on the Internet where people believe in the existence of paint. So I'm going over there to challenge one of them to put his money where his mouth is by painting my house, for free, and supplying his own materials, while a bunch of halfwitted monkeys throw their feces at him and the surfaces he's trying to paint.Do you think anyone will be dumb enough to fall for it?

Very well then.I require two guarantees.(1) I should get at least 50% of any putative profit.(2a) Whatever the outcome, you should try your darndest to get the results published. Even if the creationist you pick as my opponent crumbles under the weight of the facts and becomes an evolutionist.(2b) Or I can try to do the same thing --- so whatever creationist you get to meet your challenge must agree that I can seek out a publisher for our dialog no matter how much he sucks.---Now, go and find me a creationist. Preferably a prominent one, if you want the book to sell. I do have a PhD, but I'm willing to bet that the general public has never heard of me.Bring me the head of Duane Gish! Or his ass, I gather that they both argue equally well.

I do. It would take more than the time I have left to live to present the scientific evidence that supports it.Consider, if you will, that the Origin of Species, lengthy though it is, was a mere precis of a book so vast that Darwin never actually got around to write it.Then consider that this unwritten book represented only the researches of a single man over the course of a few decades.Then remember that our knowledge of evolution has been swelled by the activities of hundreds of thousands of biologists over the past hundred and fifty years, during which time we have discovered entire classes of evidence, such as molecular phylogeny, of which Darwin was unaware.You wish me to cram all this into a single book, and do so while a lunatic shouts nonsense at me and I am obliged to answer it. Sure, I could write a much shorter book --- a pamphlet even --- on The Hundred Most Common Creationist Arguments And Why They Are All Shit. But you want me to set out the arguement for evolution while the nutter is continually interrupting me by drooling out nonsense which will (typically) be irrelevant to my discourse. Should I break off my exposition to explain to him in detail why he's wrong, or should I just say: "Have patience, we'll find out why you're wrong about that when I get up to Chapter 12"? Yeah, I could go on to try to explain the tax laws to Kent Hovind.

Yeah, but just think how cool it would be if you could.You could sell it as "Dr Adequate Meets The Zombie Creationist From Hell." Think of the film rights, the spin-offs, the merchandising.And then the sequel where it rises from the dead, the stake still skewering its unbeating heart, and insists that this time it's not a creationist but an intelligent design proponent.

I just wanted to make the point that it is impossible for a single human being in a single lifetime to present "the evidence for evolution". All I can do is sketch out the major classes of such evidence, give a few examples, and explain why it is evidence. Hence, any readers who wanted to check that I wasn't simply cherry-picking the evidence would have to get up off their tuchi and do a little research of their own.

That's a funny use of the word "logically".The definition of a thing is (usually) separate from the process that produced it. If, for example, I wanted to define "gold" I would not include in the definition its formation in an exploding star, because gold would be gold even if it was magicked into existence by a leprechaun.

You mean you're not going to rush out and look for a creationist with a PhD and the cojones to engage in a written debate?Why not? I don't think you can start this search too early.If, in the course of your quest, you should happen across the Holy Grail or the Fountain Of Youth, please let us know.

You were expecting more people to write a book for you? Without a hint of a flicker of interest from a publisher?Your knowledge of human nature is ... unimpressive. It would be best if we cut out the section of the proposition in brackets: "Neo-Darwinism is (unequivocally true and scientifically verified fact -) essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes"Many people would object on philosophical grounds to saying that about any empirical proposition whatsoever, and while I to some extent disagree with them on equally philosophical ground, I hope you would agree that the less philosophy the better. I'm sure they'll chip in, should the need arise. The world needs one more book? I am interested because I feel that my rigorously hypothetico-deductive style of exposition does deserve a book.---About the format. Some things should be agreed in advance.First, no Gish Gallops. This is just to make the thing readable. On an Internet forum, we cut people's posts up and quote them, so that it goes like this (in schema): To which it is necessary to reply: This is already tedious to read; and it is certainly unsuited to the format of a book.The creationist should therefore be restricted to one mistake at a time, for the sake of the reader, so that the dialogue goes more like this:Him: Error of fact #1.
Me: Fact #1.
Him: Error of fact #2.
Me: Fact #2.... and so forth.---Moreover, you will have observed that creationists can generate any number of false statements about any given topic. They can, for example, spend a seemingly infinite amount of time whining about the terminology of biology, in which case we shouldn't get past the introduction.I would therefore propose that the creationist should be limited to his top 5 favorite mistakes on any given subject (perhaps more or fewer depending on the importance of the point). After all, if his five favorite arguments turn out to be rubbish, is there really any hope that the arguments of which he is less enamored will turn out to be any better?---Any luck finding a creationist?What steps have you taken to do so?

I'll ask again:Any luck finding a creationist?What steps have you taken to do so?

And I'll ask again.You repeatedly implied that if no-one would write a book for you, our case must be fairly weak.When I said that I'd write the darn book, you repeatedly implied that if only one person would write a book for you, our case must be fairly weak.Now I should like to hear from the creationist side. How have you tried to induce them to write your book, and how are you getting on?The silence is becoming deafening.Now, let me make it plain. I'm not even asking whether any creationist has the cojones to debate me. Clearly so far the answer to that is no.What I'm asking now is whether you had the cojones to ask any creationist to debate me. Did you even try, or are you certain that they all know that they'll lose?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

To do what?I can't debate a creationist until you produce one.In the meantime, instead of posting a lot of silly blather, will you please answer my question? What steps have you taken to produce one?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Get rid of abnormal color in subtitle.

Oh, we'd better add one further stipulation. You yourself must not write a word of the thing, not a preface, not an introduction, not chapter headings.Publishers' readers must get enough angry screeds on evolution from people whose literary style verges on the batshit crazy, and throwing them away must by now be automatic.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Get rid of yellow color in subtitle.