The Evolution of evcforum.net

Hi Ben,
I am not sure I get what you are saying. The EvC issue is factual. A huge group of facts connected and explained by a theory is the ToE. The social issue is that a large segment of the population (US in particular) is willfully ignorant of both the facts and theory while stating categorically that the facts don't exist and the theory is wrong.In any case, completely false statements are made by creationists (usually the same false statements repeated over and over again). These false statements can only be corrected with facts. If someone says "I don't believe in the ToE because my cat does not give birth to a rhino", it requires discussion of facts to clarify this (extremely often repeated) misconception.Ultimately, the social issue you are bringing up is to find out why so many people reject science (and reality) to cling to their beliefs...and why they feel the need to force their beliefs on others. But this also cannot be done without reference to fact...or at least I don't see how.It could be that very often, the Evo side is on the "defensive" clearing up misconceptions/mistatements/ and outright strawmen arguements which takes time, effort and a great deal of explanation. Making the erroneous/false statements takes little time or effort and that in my opinion obscures the real issues.

There is no creationist alternative to even compare. It's evolution vs. lack-of-evolution. The facts aren't evolution vs. creation; the facts are "is evolution viable?" And it's not even a dispute, it's mostly just willful ignorance of the facts.If creationists didn't see a conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution, they wouldn't even bother with evolution at all. The objections aren't scientific, they're social. They're half-assed objections because these aren't people interested in facts, they're interested in results. They latch onto whatever area they think will produce the result that they want.EvC isn't about the facts. Exactly. The facts are secondary. It doesn't matter so much what the facts are. The question is, in my country (the US), what demands do we make of the general population? How do we as a culture want to interpret science? What is the role of science in government, and how does that affect religious freedom in this country?THOSE are the issues that drive EvC. EvC is not a factual debate; if it was, you'd see the debate in the scientific community. Creos only attack the facts because they think they have to. I find it to be a move out of desperation, a move basically lacking a game plan. The real issue are social... at least in the US.AbE:So to clarify and summarize... the facts are a secondary issue in EvC. Right now "questioning" the facts simply obscures a social issue. I see a lot of discussion about facts, and even when things are layed out, either people use a smokescreen to evade them, or they just move on to the next possible area of question. By and large, when you discuss facts with someone of YEC faith, you're talking at them. Those YECs to whom facts matter are those who have a weak faith in YEC.I think the questions I outlined above are the ones that really matter in addressing EvC in the most general case.BenThis message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/10/26 07:19 AMThis message has been edited by Ben, Thursday, 2005/11/03 05:22 AM

Hi Ben,
Ok, I get what you are saying and I completely agree. However, I still don't see how one could respond to (much less debate) a creationist without at some point getting into a discussion of the facts. I guess it would actually require Evo's to ask more direct questions of why creos think what they think instead of spending so much time correcting the completely bizarre stuff that they say.

quote:

---

The question is, in my country (the US), what demands do we make of the general population? How do we as a culture want to interpret science? What is the role of science in government, and how does that affect religious freedom in this country?

---

A well distilled set of questions i.e. you quite nicely summarized the entire forum! The first question is why the debate often ends up mostly in the political forums and not the science fora. If one believes the polls, most Americans wish to turn their backs on science and return to a an anti-science theocracy. Given that the world depends more and more on technology, this would be like midieval China having turned away from its dominant position in science and technology and its subsequent long period as a backwater country with very little geopolitical influence. A large segment of the US seems to want to become like the Amish at a national level. Maybe you could propose this question as is, as a topic?The question of interpreting science as a culture is something that is not so directly discussed here. It was most recently addressed when the Kansas State Board wanted to re-define science to include the supernatural i.e. that science is just another belief system. This view is ambigiously expressed by creationists on occassion, i.e. they might say they appreciate science but think scientists don't really know what science should be. Or physics is science but evolution is not without explaining why they make that distinction.The role of science in government is often discussed here. There have been several cases where creationists have openly stated they want to remove scientist input from influencing what is taught in public school. The more extreme want it replaced by their particular flavor of religion.I think I see though why you feel facts get in the way. There are way more posts dealing with fallacies put forth by creos and way less dealing with why this situation exists in the first place.

Goodness. For the first time, I feel like I'm not insane Yup. You have to get past the bizarre questions and fundamentally address... why would someone who so obviously doesn't care about the measured facts be asking these questions? What makes them think they have to defend their faith re: science? Is science fundamentally addressing religious beliefs and, if so, is that what we want? Is science, in it's social side, make religious claims by restricting what claims are accepted from other religions?You did a good job summarizing some thoughts about these. I'm not looking to address them here; only to point out (again) what kinds of thoughts I see as laying behind the creationist's (YEC's) questioning of evolution. Haha well... thanks. I've been floundering around trying to articulate myself for a while... hopefully small successes like this can help me build a clearer representation of my thoughts. So, I'm glad. And I get that sense of... "finally." Yes. And promoting "smashing" of creationists arguments then, in my eyes, is promoting the failure to address EvC. Which is why I see Brian and truthlover's complaints as both valid and still ... lacking.And thanks for your summary of how these questions are addressed. Those were helpful mini-summaries. I'm sure I'll be quoting them at some point in the future, in helping explicate my thoughts.BenThis message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/10/26 07:47 AM

Technically, no. But TOE hints at a Godless creation. I don't think it's a matter of not caring as of not understanding. TOE is not intuitive. Thinking in terms of "kinds" is very natural.To many the evidence honestly seems sketchy becuase it's not that easy to grasp.

quote:

---

But TOE hints at a Godless creation.

---

Not just TOE, in my opinion, but any systematic set of natural laws that seem to show that the universe (or the subject of the particular field) works automatically, without a skipper to keep everything moving along in the right directions.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Yes, but some think of "laws of nature" in the legislative sense of the word "law." Argument from design.Everytime I throw the ball into the air, it comes down again. Therefore, God exists.

---

"Turning out pigs for creationists makes me blue and blurry."--Brad McFall

Can't really find them now. She tries to hide her real identity and have continuously denied that she was desdamona on other forums. Being her sadistic best friend, I can recognize her writing style even if she has submitted her posts through a randomization machine before posting.Anyway, I'll let you know the next time we encounter each other.

quote:

---

Yes, but some think of "laws of nature" in the legislative sense of the word "law." Argument from design.

---

Indeed. But this seems to indicate the Deist conception of a creator who created and then bowed out. In fact, it was about the time of the Galileo/Newton that Deism got its start as an intellectually acceptable theology.And then, once one can accept a universe that doesn't have a god constantly tinkering with things, it's a short step to then wonder why we even need a god at all....

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

And just why does this belong in a suggestions and questions thread about the site itself??

Seems like it would fall off, there. Oh, well, I just thought I'd ask. No, but only because there's no one around to play with. Mostly I play World of Warcraft, these days, and that pretty much meets my quota of dungeon delving.

Because I don't know anything about Green Lantern.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

What first pulled me into EvC when I accidentally stumbled across it was all the new infomation I could find - not just from professionals such as yourself but also knowledgable amateurs.To be honest I often could never get past the extracts of references posted by folks like you and Joe Meert but I've always just liked acquiring knowledge. EvC gave me access to people who knew about gentics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, mathmetics and statistics, geology, paleantology and a raft of other subjects.As well as the technical areas there was also loads of stuff from people like Brian and jar relating to ancient history and cultures including the religious aspects.I don't know if it is because of the end of Free For All or the fact that creos have their feet held to the fire more in terms of backing up their claims but somehow the debates that spawned the flow of all that great info seem to have just dried up.I wonder if it is because previously when someone made an outrageous claim it was dealt with by refuting it. Since Percy started clamping down on unsupported claims the thrust seems to have changed to dealing with claims by challenging whatever is used to support the claim.Hmmm... I haven't explained what I meant very well in the last paragraph but I hope you can work out what I mean.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Hi MT

quote:

---

To be honest I often could never get past the extracts of references posted by folks like you and Joe Meert but I've always just liked acquiring knowledge. EvC gave me access to people who knew about gentics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, mathmetics and statistics, geology, paleantology and a raft of other subjects.

---

The problem for me (and for Joe) is that there are piles and piles of studies that we use to support our arguements. I try to link to a few studies, explain how they support what I say, and leave it up to the reader to explore it further if they want. If it is another biologist, they will probably read the paper...laypeople, probably not though sometimes. But for a creationist who claims I have no support for my statements and then ignores the literature because "it is too complicated" reveals their hypocrisy. There have been about 2 creationists off the top of my head who actually were willing to read papers and debate them..they in turn posted links to articles that we then debated. This was a lot of fun for me. But I am not surprised this is rare since there are so vanishingly few people with a biology background who reject evolution.However, I have to agree with Ben that this is probably not the correct focus of the site. Creationists and IDists don't have have any support for their arguements. Creationists cannot formulate a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of "goddidit" and IDists cannot do it for IC. So what Percy wants will never work. Thus, the main issue boils down to why do specific people and groups reject biological sciences in such large numbers? Even without having the slightest background? After years here, I still don't understand how people can be so willfully ignorant yet arrogant. But a draw to the site is to try to find out..and see what the common themes are.Like you though, I was initially drawn by the really interesting professionals and amateurs.

quote:

---

One of the things that attracted me here was the ”whacko’ topics started by non-experts.

---

*Sigh*Another person was banned this morning. He was trying to start too many new topics and was disrupting the threads in which he was participating. Now don't get me wrong -- I understand why this sort of thing must be stopped and support the measures taken, but I was hoping to get a little more fun out of him before he was (predictably) suspended. (No blame to the Admin -- this guy just burned out too fast.)These sorts of people are exactly the reason I join these boards.Edited for clarity.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 27-Oct-2005 12:52 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt