…and this is a 
Don't 'debate' creationists!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: July 7, 2007 1:00 PM, by PZ Myers
A scientist, Charles L. Rulon, debated an ID creationist, and here are the opening remarks he gave to justify joining in the debate. He first gave a list of reasons to not debate, which I'll summarize in my own words here:
It pits oratory against science in a venue where you'll be judged on your rhetoric.
It gives publicity to creationists.
Creationists can generate more lies more quickly than you can refute.
Debates artificially give equal time to two sides, falsely elevating creationist trivia to equality with scientific substance.
The debates are often used to recruit members to fundamentalist Christian organizations.
OK, these are all very good reasons, and I agree with them. However, after giving all these reasons to shun debate, Rulon says this:
Today the United States is being confronted with large numbers of scientifically ignorant, politically active Christians who are locked into ultra-religious, anti-scientific views and who want to force these views on others through our elected officials, our courts, and our schools. That's why I'm here today.
I don't know how the debate went, but I doubt that it went well if he began the whole mess with that kind of non sequitur. His reason for going ahead with the debate did not negate the several reasons he had just given for not debating; he missed the whole issue.
Here's the situation: we must engage the public in open discussion of science, and one reason is to combat the ignorance Rulon mentions in his last paragraph. This isn't questioned by any of us who regularly battle with creationists. The question is one of how you're going to engage them, and Rulon's list is a set of arguments that says the generic 'debate' format is inappropriate.
I've been asked to participate in these debates before. Here are some constructive suggestions on how to respond.
Find out who is inviting you. If it's the Campus Crusade for Christ or some local fundie church, tell them to take a hike. They're looking for a patsy. They've probably already gone down a long list of local biologists and been turned down — all they want is someone with a degree to give credibility to their already-chosen creationist speaker. Do not oblige them.
Find out why they're inviting you. If you're being invited by a credible source — a biology department or a student science or skepticism club, for instance — ask why they're hosting a debate. Typically, they aren't actually interested in a debate: some noisy creationist has announced that they are coming to town or campus, and well-meaning, concerned citizens are trying to respond … and "debate" just happens to be the most common reaction (I suppose it is more civilized than "rail, tar, feathers"). You need to offer alternatives.
Here are a few suggested alternatives to debate that you can propose when some concerned person calls you, asking you to help fight a creationist.
Research. Hey, what did Buffy and the Scooby gang do first thing when some nasty new big bad hit Sunnydale? They started thumbing through dusty old books to find out what it was. Do the same thing: offer to find out what you can about the clown coming to town. These people usually have the same stock spiel they always give, and you often don't even need to attend the debate to know what they're going to say. Scour the web, contact organizations like the NCSE, or send an email to one of those obnoxious bloggers. I've talked to people who are pro-science, but didn't even know there were differences between young earth, old earth, and intelligent design creationists, so even sharing that level of information can help greatly.
Help them find non-scientists. If there is some insistence on that horrible 'debate' format, suggest that they get a speaker who can handle it masterfully. Ask a lawyer. Seriously. There are all kinds of case law on the subject of creationism in the schools, and the Dover case alone is entertaining and instructive. There are great possibilities in that story: I'd like to see a 'debate' in a church where a lawyer explains how thoroughly Buckingham screwed the pooch in that case by recruiting his church to donate creationist propaganda to the public school.
Encourage them to get wide local support. There's a strange attitude that the best response is to bring in a single hired gun to defeat the creationist bad guy. Far better is to tap into local resources and get a broad base of opposition that will also be there next time one of these clowns rolls into town. Find out if there's a Secular Student Alliance group at the nearby campus, or a biology or geology club. Bring in the local philosophers, too. Recruit people on your side to be in the audience—bus in people to pack the crowd with critics. I've never seen this done, but what would also be useful is to find a local liberal church and get them to criticize creationist theology.
Prime the press. If you've done your research and know what the creationist is going to say, send in letters to the local paper that preempt their major lines of argument, and prepare the audience with counter-arguments. If the paper runs an article on the creationist, find out who the writer is and invite them to sit down and talk with you about it.
Have a discussion. Don't argue with the creationist on his turf—organize a post-lecture panel discussion. Get a biologist or two, a few sensible community people, and invite everyone to join you in the student union or the local coffee shop after the talk to discuss the substance of the talk. Invite the creationist speaker to attend … as a member of the audience. Rip the arguments apart entertainingly and publicly.
Lecture on your own terms. If they're insistent, go ahead, give a talk — but refuse to share a stage with the bozo. Offer to independently and separately talk about a related topic the day after (preferably) the creationist lie. Be sure to follow through and make sure it's advertised in the same places with the same vigor as the creationist talk. The usual departmental seminar promotion is not comparable. Get the university PR department involved, send out summaries to the local paper, and get those same organizations I mentioned above involved. Make it a talk aimed at the general public.
Do not succumb to the temptation to give in to the creationist tactics as Rulon did. It is important to oppose creationists, but it's foolish to do so on their terms.
Comments
100 points for the great post. 1 billion extra credit for the Buffy references.
When well-meaning people tell me that public debates are worthless, my usual refrain is: yeah, and where has not engaging gotten us?
Posted by: k | July 7, 2007 1:43 PM
I like your distilled "five reasons"--the wider this can be circulated in the reality-based community, the better. That said, I think scientists have generally (with the odd exception) done a fantastic job of presenting a united front on the creationist debate issue.
Posted by: Andy | July 7, 2007 2:26 PM
1 billion extra credit for the Buffy references.
Lol- agreed. That's what I was going to say.
Posted by: Leni | July 7, 2007 2:29 PM
---
These people usually have the same stock spiel they always give, and you often don't even need to attend the debate to know what they're going to say.
---
Yeah, you evolutionists are constantly coming up with new arguments. I've never heard the same argument twice!
Seriously, it's not a crime for a creationist to say the same thing in many of his talks, just as it's not a crime for a biology professor to lecture about the same things each semester in one of his classes. It's just as frustrating to us for evolutionists to use the same nonsensical arguments as it seemingly is to you for creationists to use arguments that you believe are incorrect.
Posted by: Bisch | July 7, 2007 3:02 PM
A debate is supposed to be a fair fight. Consider these pairings:
- Science vs. Creationism
- Mathematics vs. Numerology
- Cosmology vs. Astrology
- Physiology vs. Reflexology
- Biochemistry vs. Aromatherapy
In each pairing, expertise in the one takes years of hard work; in the other, it takes a couple minutes of goofing around.
Anybody considering debating a creationist would do well to first study the movies The Grifters, The Sting, and Confidence. My advice to them: Don't be a patsy.
Posted by: Gork | July 7, 2007 3:04 PM
It seems like a good time to ask.
What are the dimensions of Islamic theology regarding science and the validity of the Creation myth?
They are already trying to get separate Shariah courts established for "members" in CA & UK. That means that "contracting" families can manage children by Islamic law.
That is a separate jurisprudence and education system that can defy human rights "for members only". That is until they discover how much they have in common with Christian Dominionists.
BRY
Posted by: Skeptic8 | July 7, 2007 3:10 PM
You really need to warn me before you drop in references to Scooby Do. I now have Diet Pepsi in my nose and it burns! ;)
Great post. This is going in my "important points to remember" folder.
Posted by: Possummomma | July 7, 2007 3:18 PM
I'll bite. Let's debate!
Please tell me one such "nonsensical argument" and why you think it's wrong.
Posted by: David Marjanović | July 7, 2007 3:46 PM
Bisch: it's not a crime for a creationist to say the same thing in many of his talks, just as it's not a crime for a biology professor to lecture about the same things each semester in one of his classes.
The difference of course is that the biology professor is lecturing about science that has made it through the gauntlet that is the scrutiny of learned scientists in the respective fields. By stark contrast, the creationists employ arguments that have been refuted by the relevant scientists, if ever they were offerred for peer review at all.
If this doesn't seem fair and balanced, it is because science isn't fair and balanced. The facts matter.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 7, 2007 3:58 PM
A polite way of telling people that they are dumber than a stump.
Posted by: bernarda | July 7, 2007 4:30 PM
The first thing I would say in creationism versus evolution debate is that I am not here to convince people, but to educate.
Is it a good thing to try to debate through letters to the editor?
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | July 7, 2007 4:56 PM
I can't help but wonder how many of the religious, in these so called 'debates', are just being contrary. How many people are combative in these debates about creationism, (or fake moon landings, etc.) not because they actually feel themselves to be defenders of the truth, but because they like to be diverted with rousing good entertainment?
I have many times seen people listen to creationist's arguments, and then go, "Hmmm...that's very interesting." They haven't actually been converted, but the seeds of doubt have been planted, just enough to allow them to continue playing 'make believe' with their friends.
It's all good to hold hands and worship Jesus and believe stuff, but if the earth were suddenly to be attacked by space aliens, (okay, how about killer comets?), I suspect the survival instincts of the majority of bible believers--as well as our friend, Bisch, here--would kick in--and they would toss the silly creationists, with their silly beliefs, impatiently to one side and scream their heads off for scientists--not creationists--to save them. (Am I wrong?) They would still be praying, of course, but they would be praying for God to help the real scientists.
Of course, until the earth is attacked by killer comet space aliens, the lazy minded creationists need to be slapped down, hard, by the ass kicking Buffy-type scientists before they do any more damage.
The several suggestions offered above are most helpful.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 7, 2007 5:00 PM
SA,
But it is a crime to feed the trolls.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | July 7, 2007 5:19 PM
OH, jeez. Bisch is HERE too??
Yuck.
Posted by: Hank Fox | July 7, 2007 5:33 PM
Maybe I can go you one better, PZ. When Duane Gish came to town, we organized a premptive panel discussion. Had a group of faculty (scientists and religious studies) hold a free discussion of the topics on the night beforehand.
After everyone else on the panel had had their say, I took on the job of skewering Gish directly. Searched Talk Origins for some of his favorite topics and approaches; stepped through his statements and then illustrated the reality he so conveniently leaves out. IOW, an attempt to inoculate the crowd.
I heard afterward that a number of people (who might otherwise not have known) were shocked that he actually was as dishonest as I demonstrated.
Posted by: NJ | July 7, 2007 5:47 PM
Depending on format and venue, what about written debate?
Posted by: rrt | July 7, 2007 6:00 PM
I've never seen this done, but what would also be useful is to find a local liberal church and get them to criticize creationist theology.
I need to start making a list of things I never thought I'd see PZ say.
Posted by: CL | July 7, 2007 6:02 PM
Nah, it makes sense: I'd love to set all the churches on one another, ripping and rending and tearing.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 7, 2007 6:05 PM
Glad Possumomma got Pepsi up her nose. If it had been coke the local theocrats would have social service round for sure.
Posted by: Peter | July 7, 2007 6:14 PM
A scientist who agrees to debate a creationist must spend a considerable amount of time in preparation. He or she must read everything available about their opposition in order to be in a position to refute their arguments; the scientist must know what these arguments are before he or she even shows up and he or she must be prepared to respond to what is known as the Gish galop. For instance, Ken Miller was persuaded by his students to enter into a debate with a creationist and he spent hours and hours in preparation. He was rewarded by cleaning the creationists' clock at the debate.
Posted by: SLC | July 7, 2007 6:47 PM
The real non-sequiturs, or at least non-sensibles, were in Rulon's 5 points:
Then speak well. Some scientists can. So? All debunking gives publicity to the debunked. Oh, come on. That's just a throwaway line. Since when does equal time automatically elevate one side of debate? Isn't the whole point of a fair debate to determine which side ought to be considered the "elevated" (more reasonable) one? Again, so? Couldn't it just as easily be said that such debates could be used to encourage people to understand science better?Posted by: cm | July 7, 2007 7:33 PM
---
Please tell me one such "nonsensical argument" and why you think it's wrong.
---
The whole thing. I'm skeptical that:
-Evolution produced cold blooded and warm blooded beings. It's not logical to believe that one could have evolved from another.
-Evolution produced birds/reptiles/mammals. All the different body parts came from each other? In a word, illogical. A body part, if it was a mutation, would become a bad use of the old feature loooooong before it became a benefit as the new feature. It just doesn't ring true.
-Evolution produced transitional species. I know you say you have examples of them. I just wonder how taxonomy is at all possible if your view of the species evolving is true.
That's a few off the top of my head.
But I think since you won't buy what I say and I won't buy what you say, and we will continue to talk past each other, I will understand if you call me an uneducated dolt and link to www.talkorigins.org and tell me to learn how to read.
I'm by no means saying I'm the cat's meow when it comes to scientific understanding. I am saying that a Civil Engineering degree holder from UC Berkeley should be able to understand, at a cursory level, evolutionary arguments to judge if they make sense (just telling you where I went to college to show that I'm a college graduate, not bragging by any means). I don't believe the evolutionary arguments I've heard make any sense.
Posted by: Bisch | July 7, 2007 7:35 PM
---
OH, jeez. Bisch is HERE too??
Yuck.
---
I miss the times we shared, Hank, too. Don't get all emotional on us! :-)
Posted by: Bisch | July 7, 2007 7:39 PM
---
SA,
But it is a crime to feed the trolls.
---
If you desire an echo chamber, then by all means, PZ should post that he isn't interested in creationists' comments. That would be perfectly acceptable since it's his site. It may be desired since we don't really have anything new to add to the debate, as you feel.
Posted by: Bisch | July 7, 2007 7:43 PM
Your post is dead on -- to 'debate' anyone who bases their mindset upon words written by primitives living in tents and caves and shitting in holes actually does lend them credibility that they just do not deserve. Better to keep it to the forefront of any conversation that they are basing their argument on foolishness and the scientist is basing his argument upon solid evidence. No holds barred. Why should we play with these idiots -- and they are idiots, fools of the highest order -- why should anyone lower themselves to debating this garbage; they wouldn't debate someones belief that the creator of the universe is a big fat fish that lives outside Salt Lake City in an underground movie theater which is surrounded by big dead dogs barking festively 'Our god is the only true god!' in Portuguese.
Posted by: Austin Texas | July 7, 2007 8:18 PM
But...Wouldn't that just be giving them tips for the next case?
Posted by: twincats | July 7, 2007 8:31 PM
Dear SLC,
If my memory of what transpired is correct, then Ken Miller was initially reluctant to debate a creationist after he had been approached by an ad hoc campus student committee comprised of Campus Crusade for Christ members. He consented after he was told that there was one committee member who was both the resident skeptic and supporter of evolutionary theory (That was me). I still vividly recall just how much a carnival atmosphere that debate was, since it seemed as though all of Fundamentalist Protestant Southern New England had arrived at the campus hockey arena, hoping that Henry Morris would deliver a rhetorical knockout to the novice debating him. Again, that didn't happen, and the rest, shall we say, was history....
Appreciatively yours,
JK
Posted by: John Kwok | July 7, 2007 9:04 PM
QUOTE"Evolution produced cold blooded and warm blooded beings. It's not logical to believe that one could have evolved from another
ANSWER
Warm-bloodedness generally refers to three separate aspects of thermoregulation.
Endothermy is the ability of some creatures to control their body temperatures through internal means such as muscle shivering, fat burning, and panting (Greek: endo = "within," therm = "heat"). Some writers restrict the meaning of "endothermy" to mechanisms which directly raise the animal's metabolic rate in order to produce heat. The opposite of endothermy is ectothermy.
Homeothermy is thermoregulation that maintains a stable internal body temperature regardless of external influence. This temperature is often higher than the immediate environment (Greek: homoios = "similar," therm = "heat"). The opposite is poikilothermy.
Tachymetabolism is the kind of thermoregulation used by creatures that maintain a high resting metabolism (Greek: tachy = "fast, swift," metabol = "to change"). Tachymetabolic creatures are, essentially, "on" all the time. Though their resting metabolism is still many times slower than their active metabolism, the difference is often not as large as that seen in bradymetabolic creatures. Tachymetabolic creatures have greater difficulty dealing with a scarcity of food.
A large proportion of the creatures traditionally called "warm-blooded" (mammals and birds) fit all three of these categories. However, over the past 30 years, studies in the field of animal thermophysiology have revealed many species belonging to these two groups that don't fit all these criteria. For example, many bats and small birds are poikilothermic and bradymetabolic when they sleep for the night, or day. For these creatures, another term was coined: heterothermy.
Further studies on animals that were traditionally assumed to be cold-blooded have shown that most creatures incorporate different variations of the three terms defined above, along with their counterparts (ectothermy, poikilothermy and bradymetabolism), thus creating a broad spectrum of body temperature types
from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm-blooded
Posted by: brightmoon | July 7, 2007 9:22 PM
Bisch: Okay, you appear to be genuine and not a troll, and it sounds like you've gone rounds with the commenters here before, but I'm feeling wordy tonight so I'm going to jump in...
I just don't get it. You say: "It just doesn't ring true." And creationism does??
I mean it, I don't get it. I'm not a scientist, but hard working men and women, around the world have put a great deal of time and effort into exploring the earth and the cosmos, and have concluded that the universe and the earth are very old, and that life evolves. These are serious, truth seeking people; they don't waste time just believing things without a good reason. Just because you don't understand all the details, (I don't either), you are going to go with ancient Hebrew mythology? True, Scientists don't know everything, but scientists do know more than the ancient Hebrews did. Scientists know a whole lot more than the ancient Hebrews did. Isn't that obvious?
One of the screwiest things I know of is for people to reject real investigation simply because of how they feel in church services. Something isn't made to be true, or right, just because we get into a big group hug and feel all warm and fuzzy about it, history has taught us that lesson, repeatedly. What you creationists never seem to understand, and don't seem to be capable of understanding, is that scientists don't want to believe anything. Whatever the truth is, whatever the facts are, that is what they have to go with.
Once you get away from all that religious nonsense, it's obvious that all of life is connecting in a very real, organic way, and evolution makes perfect sense.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 7, 2007 9:27 PM
....how thoroughly Buckingham screwed the pooch in that case by recruiting his church....
Off topic, but can someone tell me when that phrase shifted meaning? I recall from 25+ years ago that it was an alternate form of "fuck the dog", meaning to goof off (especially when you were supposed to be working).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 7, 2007 9:30 PM
Interesting post. I've read persuasive arguments both for and against participating in "debates" (I use the term loosely). PZ's advice rings true, and it's among the best I've read. Eugenie Scott touched on some of these points also in one of the first articles I put in my files when I was starting to follow the controversy ("Monkey Business" in The Sciences, Jan/Feb 1996, pp. 20-25). On the other hand, Michael Shermer remarked in "Why Darwin Matters" that "debates will occur anyway, so they might as well include someone with expertise and experience in science. Better still if they also have expertise and experience in debating, and can employ diplomacy, wit and warmth along with scientific facts."
I don't think I'll be in a hurry to debate, particularly in a time when the art has deteriorated into the "scream at each other a la Bill O'Reilly" format, but I like Shermer's approach very much. The idea that you can fundamentally disagree with your opponent but debate him civilly, and at the end of the day, go out and have a beer together--that's a level of civility that is sadly slipping into extinction in our society.
Posted by: bob in MI | July 7, 2007 9:31 PM
This seems like a pretty good article--Screwed the Pooch
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 7, 2007 9:49 PM
That's a pretty complete mischaracterization of what actually happened. "Came from each other" is circular. And the various types of creatures came from less-differentiated ancestors - the differences between lineages started small and increased with time.
Because we're not confronted with all creatures that have ever been alive - limiting ourselves to just those that are alive now, we find fairly discrete populations that don't interbreed - usually. And that's just species - taxonomic groups are based upon certain shared traits/properties. The way those properties were generated is quite irrelevant to the classification.
These objections are dumb.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 7, 2007 10:07 PM
Off topic, but Screwed the pooch probably came from the same common but forgotten usage as "dog and pony show." I'm tickled every time some prim and proper young politically correct drone uses the phrase and clearly has never been to Tijuana.
Posted by: Tailspin | July 7, 2007 10:10 PM
Isn't the whole point of finding out the creationists stock spiel so that you know what they are likely to say and have counters already worked out?
Posted by: BillCinSD | July 7, 2007 11:38 PM
-Evolution produced cold blooded and warm blooded beings. It's not logical to believe that one could have evolved from another.
Why is it "not logical"?
-Evolution produced birds/reptiles/mammals. All the different body parts came from each other? In a word, illogical. A body part, if it was a mutation, would become a bad use of the old feature loooooong before it became a benefit as the new feature. It just doesn't ring true.
I'm not sure what you think you are arguing against here. All of those animals have the same body parts. Skull, lungs, four limbs, etc. Do you mean differences in form and function of some body parts? That's like arguing that there can't be any Caucasians because light brown skin would be a bad use of a old feature befor it became a benefit.
Posted by: Graculus | July 8, 2007 12:06 AM
Since evolution states that the "different body parts" came from a common ancestor, not "from each other", this argument is a strawman.
Argument from a false premise.
Shrug. Current taxonomy is the best science has got with the current level of genomic understanding. As scientific understanding improves, a better taxonomy may come into play.
You won't buy what biology says because you haven't bothered to try and understand biology.We don't buy what creationism says because creationism makes the argument that what creationists don't understand cannot ever be understood, and is therefore supernatural. Which is such complete bullshit.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 8, 2007 12:30 AM
Re: Hank's comment #14...Warning: long-assed ramble ahead.
Gee, Hank, you're so much friendlier at UTI!;)
I guess if you're looking for education or enlightenment instead of porn or religious babbling, it's still a small internet! One of the results of that fact is that you will run into not only the same arguments and problems again and again, but eventually the same people as well. In case you haven't picked up on it, this is the same Neil that pops in at UTI, and I feel your pain. But there is another, brighter side to it.
Some background...
I have been interested in the sciences since I could read. I have been a religious skeptic since the fifth grade when a Sunday school teacher advised us to burn our rock albums. If I had had to choose, I would have sooner burned down the church than set a match to my original copy of The Who's "Tommy." By age fourteen I was pretty lonely intellectually, and other than a few friends in high school and college who could take the heat of reality, remained so for 16 years or so. Once you've read all the books, you need another human to sound out your own ideas. To respond with views other than your own.
Enter the internet. Just as I was giving up on humanity intellectually and ready to write them all off as being completely and willfully ignorant, I discvered that there are millions more just like me, and millions more just starting to wake up. That was a feeling, an awakening, that I can hardly describe, and it went so far beyond the childish comforts that religion had offered me in my youth.
For all the lame arguments based on personal feelings, for all the pretending to believe in unbelievable stories, most of the religious in this country are not truly stupid or evil. Just indoctrinated, stubborn and often scared by genuine curiosity. Just like they were raised to be.
What this melting pot of ideas does for you (and all of us) is give us a chance to reach out. To take the debates global without having to be a famous lecturer or other influential personality. Every time I start to get frustrated with somebody who just can't, or refuses to understand, or with some troll "pissing in the pool" I just think about the intellectual cesspool I used to swim in, when I still thought that it covered the whole world. When it comes to non-trolls kike Bisch, particularly, I can't get mad. It inspires me that a creationist would even read such sites. Who knows, maybe someday I'll get some of my friends and family back from the kool-aid party.
Posted by: Neil | July 8, 2007 12:38 AM
Tailspin, what you're referring to is more commonly known as a 'donkey show'. I don't believe that 'dog and pony show' ever meant bestiality porn.
Posted by: Stogoe | July 8, 2007 12:45 AM
CM said: 3.Creationists can generate more lies more quickly than you can refute.
Oh, come on. That's just a throwaway line.
Hardly. "All creationist comments are lies." Think you can refute that in 5 words? Refutations almost always take more time than assertions.
Since when does equal time automatically elevate one side of debate?
Um, when it doesn't deserve equal time, like when all of the evidence is on the other side, as it is here.
See, creationism had its day in the sun. It was the accepted position for hundreds of years. Evolution won the evidenciary (ie scientific) battle, leaving creationism to attempt victory in the only arenas left to it: politics and public opinion.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 8, 2007 2:06 AM
This is a good question/point, and I think Bisch deserves a fuller answer than Caledonian's. I say it is a good point, because I can see how someone might legitimately infer a static state of life from our taxonomic system and I am assuming Bisch is genuinely curious. I think a little bit of background on taxonomy might help Bisch understand how scientists do not have a conflict. Finally, I can't find any articles on the subject at talk.origins.
Warning: extremely long post. For those of you who know the basics behind the concepts of species and speciation and how they relate to taxonomy, you might want to skip ahead to someone interesting. I am by no means an expert on any of these, however, and I would appreciate any corrections if they are needed.
All of Caledonian's points are right on:
1) Examinations of currently living organisms show that they tend to be organised in populations that are reproductively isolated from each other. This is the basis of what we describe as species. Note: Some organisms, limited to bacteria and viruses as far as I know, can swap genetic material laterally; that is, they can exchange RNA with other very unrelated bacteria or viruses. This would be analagous to a man walking up to an elm and trading his ears for the elm's bark;
2) Our taxonomic system is descriptive, based on observed shared traits or characteristics; and
3) How these traits came about is generally irrelevant to how they are used in taxonomy. This is largely due to two reasons: a) our taxonomic system came into being long before we had any understanding of evolution. We can see that fish seem more similar to other fish than to birds, and fish and birds seem more similar to each other than to trees; and b) the process of classifying organisms in this way had implications that were generally validated by later discoveries. The invention of the microscope showed that the pattern of dispersion of macro traits was well represented at the micro level. Once DNA and its relationship to reproduction was discovered, the pattern was repeated within the genetic codes of organisms as well. Fossils were discovered that fit where we would expect a fork in the ancestry of living groups. These are what are known as 'transitional species'.
This does not mean that we are not continually revising our taxonomic system as our knowledge deepens to reflect what we think is the most likely way that life on our planet actually changed over time.
The answer to your question, Bisch, lies in understanding that the concept of species is much more dynamic than our taxonomic system would imply. I suggest you read through the wikipedia articles on species and the species problem. In short, the theoretical ability for members of two populations to breed with each other does not mean that they actually will, or that it's relevant to their ecological behaviour, diet, or location. Wolves and dogs, for example, can breed (wolfdogs are fertile and considered a new breed) and so they are considered the same species. But because they rarely interbreed in nature, have vastly different lifestyles, behaviours, and looks, they are different populations. (Because they diverged so recently in the past, they are still similar enough to interbreed.)
Things are even more complicated in the past. To continue with the example of wolves and dogs, let's assume the whole of human biological knowledge was somehow wiped out, and future paleontologists were trying to understand the relationship between wolves and dogs from their skeletons. On the whole, the skeletons would have a very similar look: similarities in teeth (not just sharpness, but numbers, types, and positions, skull shape, number of limbs, number and positions of bones, etc.). However, the size of these skeletons would vary markedly, and without knowing the history of dogs or wolves, they might conclude that Chihuahuas and St. Bernards were different species.
All of this is consistent with the processes of evolution as we understand them. (DNA and fossil evidence both confirm that wolves are the ancestors of dogs.) Chihuahuas cannot mate with wolves or German Shepherds, but they can mate with Daschunds who can mate with Irish Setters who can mate with Rottweilers who can mate with German Shepherds who can mate with Timber Wolves (okay, I don't know much about dog breeds either). In this case, the reproductive barrier between the Chihuahua and the Shepherd or wolf is size, but wolves are also reproductively isolated from dogs due to their very different behaviour and lifestyle. If we were to keep selecting for smaller and smaller dogs, in time dogs would be unable to breed with wolves at all (as Chihuahuas are not able to breed with St. Bernards due to their size difference). If our future amnesiac paleontologists were armed with knowledge of geology and were able to tell the relative ages of the wolf, dog, and later Tiny dog fossils, they would be able to put the skeletons of wolves as the common ancestor of wolves and Tiny dogs, and the St. Bernards and Chihuahuas of today would be considered transitional species.
Any good introductory biology text should be able to give you more detail on these and other speciation processes. Any good introductory text on paleontology will describe how the fossil record reflects these processes.
Posted by: Brownian | July 8, 2007 2:08 AM
"Fossils were discovered that fit where we would expect a fork in the ancestry of living groups. These are what are known as 'transitional species'."
Oops. Forks in the ancestry are common ancestors. 'Transitional' species are those found between one form and an earlier ancestral form.
Posted by: Brownian | July 8, 2007 2:13 AM
Science Avenger said:
Even so, scientists need refute just some ludicrous foundational creationist statements using gems like "there is no evidence for that", etc.; refutations needn't entail full biology lessons. That's a might inclusive "only" you've used there.Posted by: cm | July 8, 2007 2:31 AM
@CM (#43):
CM said:
The problem is that the average creationist debator is a trained sophist. Generally everything they say sounds plausible unless you know the background science involved. And that brings another problem, just explaining why one thing is wrong generally requires so much more information that in the usually preferred debate format there is barely (to not) enough time to do it.
CM said:
That inclusive is correct. There have been some forms of creationism that actually allowed for predictions to be made. Not a single one of these has survived, all have been falsified by the evidence found.
The one argument that is left is : "I can't believe it is possible so it is not possible.". That argument for some reason does not get accepted by scientists, so to impose their view of reality (even if it contradicts reality) the creationists need to turn to other venues, politics and public opinion.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 8, 2007 7:39 AM
I've often wondered what effect it would have on an audience for one of these staged events were the opposition to the creationist position to be from a Christian who discusses the ethics lying, and the necessity of sticking to reality where we can test it and show it's accurate, as opposed to faith-based beliefs. Gork, above, rather nails a huge part of this stuff. Most Baptists, for example, would agree that astrology is bunk, and many would probably suggest it's downright evil.
Would they want to be on the side of the astrologers? Did they read Behe's testimony? Do they really think the antics of most creationists are Christian, or ethical under any philosophy?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 8, 2007 8:06 AM
I'd Love to have a formal debate with PZ on the Idea of intelligent design vs random coincidence. I don't think It would be a snippy one ups man ship, but instead I think the audience would leave agreeing that there is no way to know for sure which is true, and both sides would be represented fairly.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 8, 2007 9:24 AM
But they would know which one fit the evidence best.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 8, 2007 9:44 AM
Wouldn't it be better to have the debate over Intelligent Design vs. evolution?
Well... not for you...
Posted by: Caledonian | July 8, 2007 9:55 AM
I don't understand why 'random chance' is so scary to people. We still exist because of consistent and orderly natural laws. Humans are still creations of the universe. There's a great deal of freedom in knowing that life is not entirely predictable, that it can diverge and go in any direction.
And besides, not everything is random chance. 'Survival of the fittest' is the exact opposite of random chance.
'Bad Astronomy' just recently had a post about new mathematical evidence that may shore up the 'endlessly collapsing and expanding universe' theory--that Big Bangs happen repeatedly. If so, this implies (at the risk of anthropomorphizing reality, itself) that every possible form of existence is being explored. Maybe that's a bit whimsical, but it's not terrifying.
What I find terrifying is the idea of being created by the god of the bible and then being trapped in a gated community for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever............
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 8, 2007 10:29 AM
Using the phrase "random coincidence" indicates the debate would be short lived and quite one-sided (i.e. PZ would demolish you).
Posted by: pleco | July 8, 2007 10:32 AM
I was asked a few years back to participate in a debate with Kent Hovind sponsored by a student creation club at a public high school in Ocean Springs Mississippi. You read it right - a creation club (with a faculty sponsor no less) at a public school. I said I would participate if, and only if, it was stipulated in writing that each participant must base at least 25 percent of their presentation on their OWN ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I was told by the faculty sponsor that this was not possible. I asked "why not?" since Hovind calls himself Doctor and claims that creationism is real science. Needless to say, I was cut from the bill.
Posted by: Brian Axsmith | July 8, 2007 10:39 AM
I don't understand why 'random chance' is so scary to people.
I wonder if there are any creationists who stand up in biology class and protest meiosis because each gamete has a chromsome from each pair chosen by random chance.
Posted by: Patrick | July 8, 2007 12:04 PM
Creationists will avoid a debate with structure like the plague. Try getting one to debate on one specific aspect of evolution and see how far it gets you. They have to be able to Gish Gallop or they have little to offer. That's why they only want unstructured, oral debates.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 8, 2007 12:05 PM
Look, someone else has already boiled it down to one phrase which you should be able to remember: "the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators". Please note the part where it says "non-random".
Posted by: grendelkhan | July 8, 2007 12:22 PM
How about a debate on the value of scientific inquiry to past, present and future global societies vs. the value of an ongoing campaign of theistic propaganda and disinformation, conducted by a cynical few, which preys on the minds of the undereducated many to the detriment of all?
Bisch: You think you're the antidote to Echo Chamber syndrome? You're laboring under the delusion that you've offering even one remotely new objection. You're one in a long series of engineers who think they Get It. It's a credit to those commenters here who took the time to give you more than equal time in responding to your statements and questions.
LOL! Neither does the completely unsupported notion that some undetectable cosmic being has meddled (undetectably) in biological and geological processes. Hey, my incredulity is at least as valid as yours, isn't it? After all, the theory in which I "believe" (I'll save you the trouble of making the standard implication that it's just another religion) has evidentiary support.
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - to those who have no understanding of the technology. The same goes for the "technology" of evolution. Intuition based on insufficient data and understanding isn't logic. How many people could pick up a microchip and, without knowing what it was, tell you what it could and could not do?
Too many people take a superficial look at evolution and say, "Oh, that couldn't happen!" and fool themselves into believing that their opinion carries any weight at all. Our "feelings" would never lie to us - right?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 8, 2007 1:34 PM
It turns out that in some cases close is good enough, giving rise to the phenomenon of ring species (see, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species ), where A and its kin can successfully mate with B and its kin, B's can mate with C's, C's with D's, etc. If their respective ranges form a ring, e.g. around the Arctic, this can result in, say, J's occupying the same range as A's but being unable to mate with them. (Follow the link for a specific example.)
Posted by: Ted Powell | July 8, 2007 1:48 PM
Does it make anyone else want to bang their head on the monitor when they read "random chance" instead of evolution?
Come on guys, if you're arguing for or agin it, at least know what "it" is.
Posted by: Scrofulum | July 8, 2007 2:32 PM
What would be fun (difficult, but fun nonetheless) is to have Mark Isaak's Index of Creationist Claims handy and reply to each argument by its number ;)
Posted by: IanR | July 8, 2007 3:00 PM
A guy walks into a bar in a strange town. He sits down for a beer and notices that every now and then someone shouts out a number and everybody laughs. After a few rounds of this, he asks the bartender about it.
"Well," says the barkeep, "We all know each other so well here, we all know the same jokes, and they've been told so many times we're sick o' hearin 'em. So we gave each joke a number to save time."
"Ah, that's interesting," says the visitor. He spends a minute or to gathering up his courage, then shouts out, "Forty-two!"
The barroom falls silent for a moment as everyone gives him a strange look.
Aghast, the visitor turns to the bartender. "What happened?!?"
The bartender replies, "Awwwww, man - yeh told it wrong!"
Posted by: Kseniya | July 8, 2007 3:06 PM
Wouldn't it be better to have the debate over Intelligent Design vs. evolution?
Well... not for you...
I am a sceptic of evolution, but evolution does not preclude ID, there fore I use the term random coincidence. I wish not to be mopped nor do I wish to Mop, I would just like to have a rational discussion with an open mind with the non ID people. It isn't personal with me. If PZ wishes I would create a blog just for the debate where we could post and respond to each other without being pissy about it or making fun of each other. What the hell I already have 4 blogs. The Physcist vs the PHD Biologist. I would rather enjoy it.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 8, 2007 3:38 PM
Kseniya:
Alternate ending:
"Awwwww, man — you shouldn't tell an Irish joke if you can't do an Irish accent."
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 8, 2007 3:42 PM
In the sense that something things may have evolved, while other things were ID'd, yes, that's true. But nothing can both have evolved and been ID'd. The one precludes and excludes the other.
As for your 'skepticism' about evolution, I'm sure PZ would set you straight. It might be simpler for you to go to talk.origins and read up on the existing scientific data.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 8, 2007 3:43 PM
It would probably be too much to ask if there is any definition at all of Intelligent Design which is testable, and which makes scientific predictions (that have not already been refuted by actual biologists).
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 8, 2007 4:20 PM
All it takes is someone to read talkorigins.
No debate required. ID is a farce with absolutely no evidence.
ID only requires faith.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 8, 2007 4:23 PM
Trust me, these people have very thick Reality Deflection Shields. You go in thinking that, well, they have such an incredibly wrong concept of what the theory of evolution entails that I can just sum it up for them... but no, they're being that dense on purpose. It's astonishing.
Posted by: grendelkhan | July 8, 2007 4:24 PM
What debate. One side uses scientific techniques of inquiry, the other fairy tales. I don't see any debate.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 8, 2007 4:26 PM
As for your 'skepticism' about evolution, I'm sure PZ would set you straight. It might be simpler for you to go to talk.origins and read up on the existing scientific data.
Well I wish he would, because the only Evolutionists usually descend int invective. In a written debate where he posts his debate points on his blog and I respond on mine would seem to preclude emotional out bursts. I generally want to understand his conceptional discourse, not anyones rants. There can be a 5 day response time from blog to blog for introspection and study. I hope he takes me seriously, because I am. And telling me to go to talkorigins.com is like me telling you to go to the Catechism of the Catholic church.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 8, 2007 4:31 PM
ThePhysicist,
...since PZ likely has better things to do with his time than rehash the (for him) well-hashed, and you simply want to have extended discussion with very knowledgeable "nonID people", why don't you try other fora, like the Infidels (which PZ used to moderate) or the interactive talk.origins newsgroup?
Posted by: Foggg | July 8, 2007 4:40 PM