What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

Behe doesn't pass the test.Behe has made points, been disproven, acknowledged that he was wrong, then continued to make the same point - he's purposely deceiving people. Hardly a good example

so what, should we just ban creationists when we get tired of them? or when they get past a certain lifespan here?look, we're all going to have basically the same points, even as we grow. i've been arguing the same points here for years.

---

And you've been arguing them with new people all the time. We should ban creationists or evolutionists for the same reasons we've always banned them.And we should stop whining about bringing back the incorrigibles because they're never going to learn. Randman has told us everything he knows. Faith has told us everything she knows, and taken up far too much space telling us. Talking to them isn't a debate. It's a bullfight.Why would an "articulate informed creationist" be interested in EvC if the lunatics are running the asylum?Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

so why should we get new creationists instead of new evolutionists? why does one of us have to go? faith occasionally learned new things. and they haven't told us everything they will know in the future. i've said the things i need to say here -- you've said the things you need to say here. argument, done, right? why not ban us both.in fact, i've had this very debate at least once before, with the same people. does an articulate, informed creationist exist? i don't say this to be crass or condescending -- but as it is, if they do exist, they certainly don't seem to be interested now. maybe we just have to accept that, in the eyes of creationists, we're the lunatics.Edited by arachnophilia, : damned typos

---

Umm... because we have a shortage of creationists, not evolutionists. It isn't one "side" that has to go. It's the ones who won't participate in good faith. Why not indeed? If we break the forum rules, repeatedly and to the point where the moderators don't want to spend all their time on us, we should be banned. That's what I'm saying: if such a person exists, he/she might very well be embarassed by the prominent creationists around here. I see no advantage in bringing back the ones who are even worse.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

exactly -- we've got enough evolutionists around. not enough creationists. yet, we're banning creationists when we get bored of them? maybe that's a fact we just have to accept. i've noticed that the moderators do spend more time on creationists. for instance, the bit that prompted this. IAJ got suspended, after continuing to write gibberish after we were issued an off-topic warning. but i continued to reply to his gibberish. he got suspended. i didn't.i won't make examples using other people, in the interest of politeness (and keeping friendships) but i can think of a few cases where two people with similar behaviour got the creationist banned and the evolutionist is still here. but i don't think that's the case at all. can you name any prominent creationists (not here, anywhere) that publicly expressed shame over hovind? haggart? they don't care about the wackos in their own camp, for whatever reason.Edited by arachnophilia, : freudian typo

---

No, we're banning them for flouting the rules. It's not the prominent ones that we should be concerned with, either out there or in here.The best chance we have to make a difference is with the young people who have been fed propaganda in their churches and who are going out into the real world with that propaganda. We can show them where they've been lied to, show them how to find out the truth for themselves.We can help them to be articulate and informed.Letting a few hardliners muddy up every thread isn't going to help accomplish that.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Right, and Faith and Ray and randman and others like them should also have the same opportunity with new evolutionists that join the site. But Faith and randman didn't tell newbies everything they knew. This site isn't just a forum for evolutionists debating creationists, but also a forum for creationists to debate evolutionists.In Faith's defense, she did come up with some intriguing (albeit unsound, absurd and absolutely wrong) arguments from time to time. She actually tried to come up with a new way of looking at an issue. Her main problem, IMO was that once she got something into her head she did the typical creationist thing and wouldn't actually absorb any of the arguments against it. She would completely ignore them most of the time, but any new idea (or new way of phrasing an argument) provides an opportunity for us to look at something in a new way, too.It is highly beneficial for the lurkers to see the arguments, no matter how many times they've circulated and it is also very beneficial for new members to test their mettle against members who are somewhat intelligible and who will keep the debate going forcing the new member to hone their arguments.Just because you've heard it all before doesn't mean that everyone else has.You don't have to participate in the threads where you feel like you are repeating yourself for the hundreth time. Let new people (or more patient people) take the lead in a PRATT debate.As frustrating as she could be, I also think that Faith was valuable and is probably as good as we're going to get (along with a few others).

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

We all go off topic at times. The apparent bias against creationists is maybe because such a high percentage of them seem not only to go off topic, but also not to understand that they've done so. It's quite common to see a creationist drag one thread off topic and towards his or her particular obsession of the moment, and then to take another thread, with a very different O.P., and drag that towards the same obsession, then a third, then a fourth, and so on.What I can't understand is why such a person doesn't just start a topic centred around the particular obsession in the first place.Perhaps that's what should be encouraged.

Many lurkers, though, will read the "muddied up" threads. No one can really say what they'll take away from it unless they speak up, but it stands to reason that some of them will have been thinking something similar to what Faith or Ray or randman or Buz or Rob post, but they either don't have the ability to articulate their views beyond the sound bite level or they are unsure of their ability to defend it so they just sit back and watch the show. It also stands to reason that some of those will come away with a better understanding of what they were thinking and come to see how it wrong (or "right"). OR they will be able to formulate a more coherent argument in time and become a regular participating member.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

They would have the same oppurtunity if they obeyed the rules.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sure, no doubt some people would take away something useful, just as some people would be driven away.All I'm saying, for the hundredth time , is that bringing back people who clearly have no desire to "play well with others" won't necessarily make EvC a better place. (They were removed in the first place to make it a better place.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

My concern is science education. What any religious members or groups believe in the privacy of their own homes and churches is not a threat to science education. If someone wants to believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago then I don't think many of us would have much objection. Debating religious beliefs is as fascinating a pastime as debating evolution, but it isn't this site's primary focus.Where such religious beliefs become a threat to science education is when religious members or groups believe that their beliefs are also science and should be taught in science class. The history of creationism which can be outlined in many ways, but many would agree that the highlights of the outline include Paley and his watch, the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the early 20th century, Morris and his book The Genesis Flood and the emergence of creation science, the court cases finding creation science to be thinly disguised Genesis, the rise of ID, and the court case ruling that ID was merely thinly disguised creation science.You see, creationism isn't about an effort to convert to people to conservative Christianity. If it were most of us would take no notice. Creationism is all about promoting the view that the Biblical account of creation is scientific. What is most strange about the creationists here now is their unawareness of this simple fact, and the enthusiasm with which they pursue self-defeating arguments based upon God and the literal inerrancy of the Bible.--Percy

I think I have it. I've been thinking about this for a while now. Male clownfish will change genders if there is a shortage of females. The answer to our current shortage of creationists - especially those who know what the theory of evolution actually is - may have been staring us in the face in the OP too.I was reminded by Admin's post 232, quoted via TD's post in the OP. Excuse me for quoting out of context, however. See where I'm going here? Surely a really skilled debator can take any position. I know Richard Dawkins is against it, as he says (on in preface page xiv of The Blind Watchmaker), but he's not the Pope of Evolution (contrary to some creationist claims).

quote:

---

A lawyer or a politician is paid to exercise his passion and his persuasion on behalf of a client or a cause in which he may not privately believe. I have never done this and I never shall. I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be right. I remember being shocked when visiting a university debating society to debate with creationists. At dinner after the debate, I was placed next to a young woman who had made a relatively powerful speech in favour of creationism. She clearly couldn't be a creationist, so I asked her to tell me honestly why she had done it. She freely admitted that she was simply practising her debating skills, and found it more challenging to advocate a position in which she did not believe. Apparently it is common practice in university debating societies for speakers to simply be told on which side they are to speak. Their own beliefs don't come into it. [...] I resolved to decline future invitations from debating societies that encourage insincere advocacy on issues where scientific truth is at stake.

---

Having been a member of such a debate society (although creationism was not ever a topic), I have experience debating against the side that I believe. It is actually a little easier, I think, as you know the weaknesses of your own beliefs. And, it can be quite enlightening.What are your thoughts?

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

The topic is "What (or who) is an Articulate Informed Creationist", not "What (or who) is an Inarticulate Ill Informed Creationist".The evolution side knows what and who are of the second variation. That is not the topic. Once again, "What (or who) is an Articulate Informed Creationist" is the theme. Please address the theme and not the anti-theme.AdminnemooseusAdded note - Faith may well have been articulate, but she wasn't (scientifically) informed. As such her participation is at least sort of on topic.

---