Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 12:50 AM
17 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,883 Year: 8,919/19,786 Month: 1,341/2,119 Week: 101/576 Day: 2/99 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist vs. Evolutionist debates - WHY?
CK
Member (Idle past 2291 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 4 (218410)
06-21-2005 12:31 PM


On a number of threads and various other places on the internet, there are discussions about offers from creationists to have public debates about the theories that they offer up.

One recent example on here has been the offer of Walt Brown to debate his theories with the scientific community (NOTE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE NOT AN OFFER TO DISCUSS THAT CASE FURTHER).

For those who support such public debates:

1) why do you feel those debates are useful?

2) In terms of scientific progress, what function do such debates perform?

3) why do you feel the peer-review process is not the most suitable venue for the SCIENTIFIC evidence that those people bring to the table?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jazzns, posted 06-21-2005 3:10 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 4 by EZscience, posted 06-22-2005 11:18 AM CK has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 4 (218415)
06-21-2005 12:42 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2074 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 3 of 4 (218441)
06-21-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
06-21-2005 12:31 PM


The problem is that the debate is not a scientific one but a political one regarding science. I for one would not give a darn about this issue if it weren't for the threat it posed to our already degrading education system.

The only reason the US even stepped up its emphasis of science education to begin with was because of the threat from the USSR.

Now there is no percieved need for true science so the overriding philosophy that says we teach science as it is defined by scientists takes a back seat to lobbyists and special interests.

If we have any hope to keep the uninformed, lying, hypocritical, dogmatic, America-haters out of our public education system then we have to meet them where the battle is at. It just so happens that is battle is located in the political arena where the scientific method is just, "that thing you learned about in high school."

Just like a bunch of other crappy things that have happend in the US recently (i.e. Patriot Act, DMCA), government is doing thing against the will of the people because they can. The people who get close enough to the governments ear get a say. That is why we cannot be apathetic to the things that go on in our government. We need to make sure that the attention of the policy makers isn't always on the cranks and the crazies like it has been for way too long.


Organizations worth supporting:
www.eff.org (Protect Privacy and Security)
www.aclu.org (Protect Civil Rights)
www.aaup.org (Protect Higher Learning)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 06-21-2005 12:31 PM CK has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3317 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 4 of 4 (218656)
06-22-2005 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
06-21-2005 12:31 PM


Floggin the dog(ma)
I don't really support such debates (although I ocassionally participate to ensure science isproperly portrayed) so I can't address (1) or (2), but I think I know the answer to (3).

Such 'public' debates, where any joe off the street can put in his/her 2 cents worth, is about the only kind of forum where religiously motivated criticism of science can be effectively flogged. This is an environment where it is easy to circumvent, avoid, or misrepresent evidence-based reasoning in ways that could never survive any rigorous form of peer review. They have to take the battle against science out of the scientific venues because they won't play by the rules and they can't possible flog their dogma there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 06-21-2005 12:31 PM CK has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019