BBC Focus Magazine

[MrIsaksson]

In the past I have always thought that people can believe in whatever they like and if they want to believe in a god I don't have a problem with that.

That was until I started to hear about Creationists, I really worry about their view and how it seems to be gaining credibility within society.

After watching Richard Dawkins TV series and how he tried to reason with creationists and show them that they were wrong, I have been thinking quite a bit of what would be a killer argument against creationism. The problem is that it has to be simple enough and not something that forces you to use science to prove it.

Being a molecular biologist I see daily example of evolution at work at a DNA/RNA level, but I suspect before I even got to explain DNA a creationist would have wondered off or tried to pour holy water on me.

If I understand their thinking correctly, do they think the earth some 4000 years old, and all fossils etc are just god's way of decorating and everything was created exactly how it looks today. So mountains have always existed, so has canyons, oceans etc.

I should say that I have never actually met a creationist, at least not knowingly

But if you did meet one, what argument would you use to try to convince them to think?

One argument I was thinking of was the existence of different human races.
If no evolution existed, how do they explain that two people from an African origin will have black child or that a Caucasian couple get a white child. There are clearly something inheritable here and Adam and Eve must have had a skin colour of some sort. So if so shouldn't there be any different races.

What do you think, is it simple enough to get a creationist to think or do you have a better argument that you would use if you got stuck in a lift with one

Cheers
Jon

[The Jules]

4000 years? Don't be ridiculous. It's 6000, which is far more sensible.

I asked a god-botherer to think like a scientist and try to find evidence against his own beliefs etc, and if you can't you know you're on to a winner with your hypothesis.

My reasoning was that this should take about three minutes before some serious questions without answers start to arise, but he used his "get-out-of-thinking-free" card - faith.

In the end I resorted to asking him, if we're made in God's image, and he's so perfect, why have we only got one hole for food AND air.

[Nails]

The problem is that you can't win - no matter what.

Memes that spread through a society do so becuase they are generaly simple and repeatable - and a lot of scripture is like that.

Science however, doesn't work that way.Not very well, anyway.
You need to have a background knowledge of science in general, and at least a rough idea of the subject before you can understand anything.

Richard Dawkins has summerised evolution as 'the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators' which is as succinct as I think you can get, but not simple enough for some people.

Personnally I have never met a creatonist who is open to evidence or counter-argument.
Interestingly though, I joined a Chrisitian website a couple of years ago and was amazed at the daftness of their arguments.
There was one kid, about 16/17 years old who would argue that the earth was the centre of universe.
Unlike others, he engaged those who pointed out the evidence and after a few MONTHS he admitted his argument had been shot to pieces. He returned a few weeks later as an atheist by the way.

The biggest problem that scientists have with the anti-science lobby (for that is truly what they are) are they will use mis-information to further their arguments - see Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron for a classic case or two.

Thunderf00t does a series on YouTube titled "why people laugh at creationists" and it highlights the same kind of thing. Non-Stamp Collector does a great parody of creationism, well worth watching also.

But a kiler argument?
ID is such a simple concept to understand - if it is complicated it must have been designed even if it was designed badly - but many put the weakness of design down to 'sin' or 'evolution')
Heridtary factors are obvious, the problem with evolution to some people is that it really does take millions of years and requires something most lay people have no real concept of - random chance.It really gets me how some people dismiss the idea of transitional fossils in favour of the crocoduck idea - I mean, what the hell else is an archaeopteryx?
It really is a raptor with feathers.
And as raptors are so bird-like to start with, the rest is so easy to picture.

In all honesty I really wish #i had an answer, but I don't really. Frustrating though it is.

[Ush]

It really gets me how some people dismiss the idea of transitional fossils in favour of the crocoduck idea - I mean, what the hell else is an archaeopteryx?

The process of speciation provides all the transitional evidence one could ask for.

As for the killer argument, well I would point out the evolution is visible in our daily lives. To a creationist, point out that he and his siblings have the same parents, ate the same food, were raised in the same house by the same parents and went to the same school, thus they all were raised in the same environment. Then point out that he and all his siblings have different traits to one another and to their parents and because they had the same environment (food, education, home) the differences are not because of the the environment. Mention that while he might be similar to his parents in many ways, there is still noticeable difference and those differences between parents and siblings and between siblings themselves are because of genes, that those differences are the stuff of evolution! He should then come to realise the he has witnessed a stage in the evolutionary process. Further point out that the same will apply to himself and his children.

How's that?

[MrIsaksson]

Ah I stand correct, 6000 years, of course, no I see the light

I know I cant win against "faith" but it annoys me no end that these 'people' dismiss proven facts and that people like Michael Reiss gives them credibility.

There is a clearly no proof of a god existing but it is very hard to disproof the existing of one.
But to argue that science have no proof that the earth is older than 6000 years or that evolution is real...

Ush, I like your argument . Now I just have to sit and wait until a creationist pops by and want to discuss with me

[Shadowwolf]

Simple answer is you don't, at least you don't in their eyes as they always win.

No matter how reasoned, how scientifically based, how obvious your argument may be, it will never penetrate the wall of willful ignorance that a believer will erect no matter what the subject. I have had encounters with folks who will blissfully ignore the literal words of their chosen superstition, and invent the most farcical excuses to gloss over the gaping holes inherent in their holy tome.

Peeps have chosen to just believe, have chosen to never exercise the slightest hint of critical thinking in relation to whatever it is they have chosen to invest their unquestioning devotion. About all anyone who can think for themselves can hope for, is too make an argument that will make an impact on those who have not already made an a priori decision to 'just believe', who might still have an idea of what reason is.

Creationists are either those who have been unfortunately left bereft of a proper education, with some social conditioning to boot, or those who are deliberately ignorant to protect their otherwise unsustainable belief. You just place your position as best you can and hope that some can follow and escape the blind dogmas.

[Flakkarin]

I've been following with some interest the facebook battle between two rival groups:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/we-can-find-1000000-people-who-dont-believe-in-Evolution-befor-June/262702360070?ref=nf
http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-can-find-1000000-people-who-DO-believe-in-Evolution-before-June/252759483743?ref=mf
Note: don't pay too much attention to the name of evolutionsit group, we all know you don't 'believe' in evolution, it was just written that way to be the opposite of the creationist group.

I've not contributed myself, since I can't stand 'debating' with people who simply won't listen, but you can find a lot of interesting back-and-forths there, as long as you can ignore all the blatant baiting! (although there are some amusing things in 'Fundies say the darndest things'...)

[Croatguy]

Just get them to watch comedian Bill Maher's documentary Religilous. I know of a few people who have changed their views after watching it. He just makes them look stupid. In one scene he is interviewing a hardcore Jewish believer, who is describing to Bill about the wonderful afterlife and how heavenly it is. Then Bill simply asks him, "Why dont you kill yourself now then if its so good? Why wait?

[Nails]

The process of speciation provides all the transitional evidence one could ask for.

Indeed it does.
But seeing small differences between related animals (or people) is just genetic differences.
I know, and you know the importance of this, but they don't.
They just ignore it.

And until science shows one 'kind' of animal turn into another, they will never accept it as fact.

Yet when you show them fossils displaying intermediate characteristics, they denounce it as a fake, a freak or whatever.

Because, the underlying point that evolution needs is time - and lots of it.
These die-hard idiots would rather believe in the half-baked maths of a nutty bishop reading an ancient collection of myths over scientific reason and hard evidence.

Given enough time, you can construct a good, coherant argument against YEC that is undeniable.
But it does take an awful lot of time and explaination.

[Doonhamer]

Some material here.

http://richarddawkins.net/archive,page1 ... ate-Points

[The Beige Avenger]

......."Why dont you kill yourself now then if its so good? Why wait?

coz duh... you won't get in if you top yourself.


You can't argue with someone who doesn't listen.... I feel it is often the case with 'scientists' vs 'creationists' who simply don't listen to each other.

I have no intention of jumping on the band wagon pointing fingers at how silly 'they' are... I just think it is amazing that we live in a time now where this out-spoken, anti-establishment sentiment can be said so freely without punishment and that now more and more people are becoming comfortable in being honest with their beliefs whether or not they are atheists.

What does the average creationist believe in?

I also can't help but wonder why the mods haven't been on this....

[Shadowwolf]

I also can't help but wonder why the mods haven't been on this....

Because of the increasing attempts by those with faith based explanations of the natural world to have their faith based beliefs thought on an equal par with evidenced based science. The view was taken that such discussion had sufficient relevance to science and hence this forum, and this topic managed to come under that for now.

[Chimera]

hi, long time no post, thought I would chip in.


Just to say before any assumptions are made about my beliefs that I think evolution is a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for our existence, and I am what some would define an 'evolutionist'.
I do have quite a scientific and analytical approach to life, and I try to ensure that bias does not cloud judgement as much as possible. So when I read your sentance below:

That was until I started to hear about Creationists, I really worry about their view and how it seems to be gaining credibility within society.

I thought that this was a demeaning and dismissive, dare i say arrogant and almost dehumanising description of a very large amount of people, and it would be nice if we could keep these kind of sweeping statements free from logical debate.

Being a molecular biologist I see daily example of evolution at work at a DNA/RNA level, but I suspect before I even got to explain DNA a creationist would have wondered off or tried to pour holy water on me.

Again, this is a fairly ignorant dismissal of creationists, and as it happens, all the creationists I know (and I know quite a few), indeed, the silent majority of creationists are rational free-thinking individuals from many different backgrounds, scientific included.

My point is that why do religious people get lumped into a “creationist” group? Is it not possible for someone to have a strong religious faith and still agree with and support evolution?
From my experience, the whole creation-evolution debate is a red herring which distracts a lot of religious people from the all the important stuff in faith, and creates this very negative view that, mostly due to the angrier, vocal minority, all Christians are creationists, and all creationists are ignorant and brain-washed, incapable of rational thought.

If Creation were empirically proved correct (which it can’t be) then this would give undeniable proof for a higher being of some kind. However, if evolution is true, (which I am inclined to think it is) then this does not prove nor disprove the existence of a higher being, as evolution could still be the method of God’s creation. So essentially, the argument is a bit of a waste of time if your goal is to disprove the existence of a higher being.

Any thoughts?

Thanks
Chimera

[Shadowwolf]

Hullo there Mr Chimera. First off I don't believe the OP is about the proof or disproof of any higher being or beings but solely about whether there is any way to convince a creationist to accept the evidence over their own gut preference.

My point is that why do religious people get lumped into a “creationist” group? Is it not possible for someone to have a strong religious faith and still agree with and support evolution?

They do not and were not, at least not that I am aware of but creationism is a purely religious position based on the OT, and to pose it as an explanation is also to pose a particular faith as above all others. It is also not impossible for those of any faith to also agree with and support evolution as a great many do, the particular group that are creationists do not. It is also unfortunately far from a red herring, this vocal minority are actively engaged in trying to have their faith thought along side science, as though they were an equally valid scientific explanation. They also engage in misinformation and pseudo-education as one step inside the Creation Museum can illustrate; in short the minority are a danger to education and science hence the debate.

The OP was basically inquiring as to whether there was evidence or framing that would convince those who subscribe to the creation explanation, not about whether any god or gods exist and not suggesting that all religious believers are creationists by default; that initial topic is where we shall stay.

[Nails]

Just to say before any assumptions are made about my beliefs that I think evolution is a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for our existence, and I am what some would define an 'evolutionist'.
I do have quite a scientific and analytical approach to life, and I try to ensure that bias does not cloud judgement as much as possible.

Beliefs are OK, we are all entitled to them.

I thought that this was a demeaning and dismissive, dare i say arrogant and almost dehumanising description of a very large amount of people, and it would be nice if we could keep these kind of sweeping statements free from logical debate.

It was, I agree.
That's because there is no debate about Creation-Evolution.
Evolution is fact, creation ismythology.

Again, this is a fairly ignorant dismissal of creationists, and as it happens, all the creationists I know (and I know quite a few), indeed, the silent majority of creationists are rational free-thinking individuals from many different backgrounds, scientific included.

As there are many different types of creationist, it wouldn't suprise me to find many that are sane and sensible.
Those who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old however, are evidence-deniers who place their faith in a literal bilical interpretation over empirical evidence.
Again, that's fine - but we see a lot of these people who make it their business to promote their faith in public - often using public money - and that is bad news.
America has a real bad problem here, but in the UK it would appear we are not too far behind them.

My point is that why do religious people get lumped into a “creationist” group? Is it not possible for someone to have a strong religious faith and still agree with and support evolution?
From my experience, the whole creation-evolution debate is a red herring which distracts a lot of religious people from the all the important stuff in faith, and creates this very negative view that, mostly due to the angrier, vocal minority, all Christians are creationists, and all creationists are ignorant and brain-washed, incapable of rational thought.

Evidence vs faith - whichone wins when there is a deadlock?
That is the crux of the matter, I don't see how you could follow scientific evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, life evolved and still believe in a god-man thing that was born of a virgin, that cast demons out of people and into pigs, spoke of Moses and Adam & Eve as if they were real people.
My opinion, of course.

If Creation were empirically proved correct (which it can’t be) then this would give undeniable proof for a higher being of some kind. However, if evolution is true, (which I am inclined to think it is) then this does not prove nor disprove the existence of a higher being, as evolution could still be the method of God’s creation. So essentially, the argument is a bit of a waste of time if your goal is to disprove the existence of a higher being.

You cannot prove or disprove that a higher being exists or not.
Evolution - and science in general - does not say anything about whether a god exists at all.
Neither does Maths.
And yet they work just as well without one.

[Nails]

But if you did meet one, what argument would you use to try to convince them to think?

Personally, reading the bible made me question the faith I was raised in.
Science just embossed this with facts and made me more skeptical of religion.

[Theos Dolophonos]

But if you did meet one, what argument would you use to try to convince them to think?

Tough question.

Last time I got into a debate with a creationist he started off with the Paley's Watch argument. This took me about a minute to counter.

But instead of responding with a counterargument of his own, he changed tack and came up with a completely different point, which basically boiled down to "the Bible says so".

I pointed out the numerous flaws and contradictions in it. He said that that was because it was written by humans, who had clearly sinned and so were fallible.

He challenged me to come up with some evidence that God doesn't exist. I said that a) I had not at any point said he doesn't, only that he didn't play a part in evolution, and b) things which don't exist tend not to leave evidence of their non-existence.

At this point he got fed up and, before leaving, accused me of being narrow-minded, prejudiced, evil, greedy, cruel to animals and various other derogatory terms... without us ever returning to the topic of intelligent design.

[Dash Lightning]

I get the watch/designer argument a lot, I just point out that if "God" designed us, who designed him, as he obviously has greater complexity than we do. Plus we're not that greatly designed.

Speaking of sane creationists, you might be surprised to know a large amount of the students on my medical course believe in this (this scares me still).

[BrIDo]

Just get them to watch comedian Bill Maher's documentary Religilous. I know of a few people who have changed their views after watching it. He just makes them look stupid. In one scene he is interviewing a hardcore Jewish believer, who is describing to Bill about the wonderful afterlife and how heavenly it is. Then Bill simply asks him, "Why dont you kill yourself now then if its so good? Why wait?

I watched his documentary (the whole thing is available on youtube) and it is definitely worth viewing! I do like his intense 'all the cards on the table' approach, although I suspect some of his interviews were the subject or clever editing to further ridicule his opposition. None the less, many of the points made during the course of it hold their own water.

It's this idea of having a particular objective in mind - a mindset prior to examining any evidence or proof, and then choosing / shaping what facts there are to make it fit the way you want. What is puzzling is that [not strictly in this documentary either] many religious folk are capable of understanding the science they want to disprove - but instead choose to ignore the science which contradicts and take (often taken out of context) the stuff that does and use it as an argument. For example, one chap made the argument that the salt content in the oceans increases every year. We can measure the rate of change, and, by looking backwards, we can deduce that all the water on earth was freshwater about 4400 years ago.

If Creation were empirically proved correct (which it can’t be) then this would give undeniable proof for a higher being of some kind. However, if evolution is true, (which I am inclined to think it is) then this does not prove nor disprove the existence of a higher being, as evolution could still be the method of God’s creation. So essentially, the argument is a bit of a waste of time if your goal is to disprove the existence of a higher being.

Any thoughts?

Science explains the world around us, based on how the world works. Observing what we can see and measure and best explain things from that evidence. Decisions are made -should be made- by examining all the evidence available and moving to the logical conclusion, but of course that is not always the case - there may be some agendas at work, and although not in the spirit of science, it must be conceded that it does happen. I remember watching an interview which something along the lines of:
Believer: Can you prove god does not exist?
NonBeliever: 'No, but the point is that, there is nothing to suggest there is a god.'
Believer: 'But you've admitted, you cannot prove 100% that there is no god.
Nonbeliever: 'Well, no. I can't make a statement like that'.
Believer: 'Well there you have it.'

Correct me if I'm wrong but strict creationism as a religious movement only came around in America in the 1970's, and although I'm only referring to what I've been told / seen in interviews it follows what can be described as a literal interpretation of the events of the bible. Adam and Eve did exist and there was a talking snake which warned them not to eat from the forbidden fruit. A talking snake? There are people willing to doubt the evidence supporting evolution but are willing to accept that it is possible there was a talking snake? What more argument against it do you need?

[Shadowwolf]

Let us try and stick to the OP and not further digression please.