Perhaps if you were better prepared and informed you could make a better appearance and presentation. Yeah, I understand its hard to think on your feet
Part of these poor scientist problem, is that they dont understand the issues to begin with
That was the situation in the beginning of the creationist "debates" in the 1970's. Those poor scientists went in thinking that the debate would be about what science is and says and shows us. Instead, they got hit by an avalanche of creationist bullshit the likes of which they had never seen before and could have never imagined in their wildest nightmares. They were totally unable to deal with the mass of misrepresentations, misquotes, and outright lies that was being thrown at them.
So, they started taking creationists seriously. They started reading the creationists' books and articles. They saw the scientific citations in those claims and they did what no creationist ever would do: they looked up those scientific sources cited by the creationists to see what those sources had actually said. It's SOP for scientists and academics, but completely foreign to the creationist mentality. That revealed how the creationists were misquoting and misrepresenting their sources. It also gave the scientists and professors familiarity with creationist claims and what was wrong about those claims.
Then, through informal communications, those early victims of creationist "debators" got in touch with each other (were probably already in touch with each other through every-day work) and shared their experiences and what they had learned. This led to the state-wide "Committees of Correspondence" (CC), which by 1980 led to a nation-wide clearing-house for these CCs, the
National Center for Science Education (NCSE). From the history offered at that link:
quote:
In 1980 Stanley L. Weinberg, a veteran high-school teacher in Iowa, began to organize statewide Committees of Correspondence "committed to the defense of education in evolutionary theory," modelled upon the committees of correspondence in pre-Revolutionary America. Their purpose was to keep interested parties informed about creationist endeavours and to share ideas for responses, allowing a political response at a local level. This grew into volunteer networks in most states, with the Creation/Evolution Newsletter interconnecting them, which was incorporated as the NCSE in 1983.
I started getting involved in 1981 and first heard about the NCSE in 1984. I've seen a lot of the history unfold during that time. I've been discussing creation/evolution on-line since circa 1987. I know what I'm talking about and I know about creationist misconduct from very personal experience.
One thing that has worked to our advantage is that the creationists' presentations are very well-polished. That means that they are running through a script; eg, Duane Gish, the universally acknowledged creationist "master debator" (you won't get it, but everyone else is fully free to play with the wording inside those quotation marks). This means that, while that well-oiled machine may serve the creationist well against uninitiated opponents, the more studious opponents will know exactly what the creationist will do, what false claims he will use, and what the appropriate responses are.
A little sage advice; you should include this scroll in your scripture:
quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
- Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles
you will never be in peril.
- When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of
winning or losing are equal.
- If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every
battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)
What the scientists and educators did was to alleviate themselves of their ignorance of their opponents, the result of which was the turning of the tide circa 1980. For example, in 1979 there was a new public school policy to include "creation science" in the local curriculum in Tampa, Florida. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Kenneth Miller (a biology PhD and professor and a self-professed creationist, yet an ardent opponent of "creation science") debated Institute for Creation Research (ICR) then-President (now deceased) Dr. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering) in Tampa. At the time, Henry Morris and Duane Gish, both of the ICR, were the two top creationist debators and had actually quite literally written the Book on "creation science". The ICR reported that Morris' performance in that debate had substantially strengthened the creationist position in Tampa (not the first time they've lied), but in reality as a result of the debate the school board indefinitely shelved their planned implementation of a creationist curriculum. Gish fared even worse in a subsequent debate with Miller, sealing the fate of that creationist curriculum.
Get somebody in there who knows what he's doing and the creationist will have a very hard task before him. It's the newbie who doesn't know what kind of utter bullshit he's about to be hit with who remains easy prey for creationist deception. And like B.T. Barnum's suckers born every minute (model for all these new creationists reading the long-refuted false creationist claims, never knowing the rich history of their absolute refutation, yet another creationist lie being told them), there are scientists and educators out there who are unaware of the rich resources available to them. But as they also become educated, they also cease to be such easy prey for your deception.
In written ofrm or in person, it wouldnt help your case.
Au contraire! -- et vous n'tes pas mon frre.
The greatest advantage a creationist has is the element of surprise. If they are able to deceive their opponent into thinking that the issues of the "debate" are scientific, then they are free to chew him up piece-meal. The very last thing that creationists would want is to allow their opponent time to analyze their claims and to research them. An oral debate with time constraints ensures that that will never happen. A written debate opens the doors for actual examination of the evidence, which is the very last thing that any
aware creationist would want.
Of course, there are creationists who, according to Sun Tzu, do not know themselves. But, to my mind and in my three decades of experience, any creationist who has been involved in discussion for any length of time cannot help but know how weak their position is. This is why I believe that honest creationists don't last long, because they very quickly reach a point where they have to become wilfully ignorant, IOW to start to actively deceive themselves.
{ABE: Dawn, you have seen for yourself how well your bullshit plays in written form. It doesn't play at all, does it? Why do you remain so deeply in denial? Because you believe that your faith depends completely on the lies that you keep spewing? Why are you unable to see what's so fundamentally wrong with such a sick and perverted theology?}
Due to the fact that you are trying to wedge a principle into the discussion that is either non-existent or imaginary. Your trying to create a case or scenerio that is not a problem in the first place
No, Dawn, you are the purveyor of bullshit. Drosiophilla was telling the truth.
You really have no clue, do you? The perfect creationist patsy.
BTW, may I please extend my congratulations? You have made incredibly enormous progress. Most of your writing is
actually in complete sentences. I honestly would not have believed it possible, but
you did it! It's a wonderful achievement!
Now if you could only place actual
content into those sentences.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE
Edited by dwise1, : spelling
™ Version 4.2
