Do we talk up or down to fundies?

Though similiar to the "teaching science to non-scientist" thread, I think this warrents a thread of its own.The issue is this -
Frequently when trying to explain a scientific concept to a fundy, the thread will devolve into a series of nitpicking posts between two or more incredibly well versed science types.Usually this is on some subtangent of the original thread, and as a result, the fundy who asked the original question is lead down increasingly more complicated threads in which people are arguing about minor points to which he's never been exposed.My thought is, this HURTS the cause.Our goal here, as a community, should be to either a) break down the false arguments presented by the anti-science religeous/political movement, or b) introduce those who've completely missed out on their science education to the key building blocks of this theory.If a child asked about basic addition and subtraction, you wouldn't present them with a 400 page proof. You wouldn't make them sit through an arguement between two mathematicians about calc vs trig and the implications of sine. The child would be completely lost and would come away with the belief that the people talking couldn't agree about math.How many times have we heard this false statement: "Even scientists can't agree about evolution." because of debate about steady state vs punctuated?That is the mind set we are dealing with.The question here:
Should we treat fundamentalists as though they've completely missed out on their education or should we treat them as though they were part way through their masters degree in bio-engineering?

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, I totally missed it. It's only because of another reply that I saw this. Here's the thing. If someone writes "Only frogs have DNA", then yes, it's important that we correct them on it, since it's clearly wrong. However, if someone writes "Gene xyz12 is only found in frogs" we don't need get into an 8 post string about how some South American tree frogs don't have xyz123 or how toads should have it but don't, followed by a 3 post thread on how toads and frogs are different, etc.If the original point was tadpoles and frogs both have xyz123, going down all the different nitpicky arguements isn't going to help convey the concept to the fundy. It's just going to look like a bunch of nerds can't agree on what is a frog. You are making a major assumption here. You assume that Fundies have the same thought processes which you or I have. They do not.You've seen it time and again on the boards, and it usually looks like this:
A fundy posts someting ridiculous. We respond with why it's ridiculous. Fundy denies our position. We give a complicated scientific example to show the flaw in the fundy's thinking. The fundy responds with a bare link to AiG.That last step is KEY.Here's what happens in our minds - "Hrmm, I don't understand what he's saying. Let me take a look at it and ask a probing question about one of the pieces."Here's what happens in the Fundy mind - "Hrmm, I don't understand what he's saying, I'm going to let someone else do my thinking."The entire premise of the Fundamentalist argument boils down to "Someone else already figured it out and told me, so I don't have to think about it."Giving them "big boy" science just hurts their heads and makes them fall back to "someone else's" answers.The only way we're going to make any progress is to lead them by the hand through simple real life analogies, showing them the errors in their paradigm.We don't need them to look at the full picture of Evolution and say "Okay, I get it now." They CAN'T get it. Not until they can first look at Creationism and go "Hey, wait, this and that doesn't make any sense."Only when they have broken free of one paradigm can they accept a new one. I'm not suggesting we pretend that we do. What I'm saying is, we should pay attention to the audience.Look, most of the guys/girls here are very bright. Very bright people like nuance. We can argue infinitely about sub-sub-sub-sub-issues within a field. It's how we show off our vast stores of knowledge.The problem is, to outsiders it's all gibberish.So, I think we should all (me included) try and pay more attention to explaining stuff to the Fundies in simple terms and less attention to who knows more about archaeic fungi or non-mammalian reproduction. This is a fine notion. And on some of the more essoteric threads, it's fine. But when we get into itty bitty nitty gritty recom-dna on a thread like "How many animals on the Arc" we definitely aren't helping the overall arguement.

The problem is they don't WANT to know Jack. As I was saying in the other response I just posted - they want the answers handed to them so they don't have to think for themselves.This is evident from the constant tendancy for the Fundies to simply reply with a bare link to AiG etc.If they could think for themselves, there'd be no one on the boards to argue with since we'd all already be in agreement.

Haha, I remember that. I pointed out that just that day I had found a fossilized shell while on a hike and asked exactly how the scientist would know that I had found it.She, as always, got mad.

I'm not suggesting we let all errors slide. What I'm saying is, there is a difference between someone making a generalized statement in order to express a concept and someone writing for a peer reviewed journal.Your typical fundy is going to struggle with the concepts in "Discover" magazine, you can't expect them to be able to read "Modern Molecular Scientist".All I ask is that we, the people who understand the science, read the posts with an eye for the concept which is getting expressed, rather than as a chance to enter ourselfs in a science dick wagging contest where we can prove that we can write a long sentence than the next guy.