…and this is a 
Ross Olson of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association has sent me the results of the survey that was given at the debate. He is trying to spin it as supporting the claim that this kind of debate was "useful" — but I'm unimpressed.
About 500 people attended, 290 returned the survey. The survey basically asked two questions about whether they supported teaching creationism in the classroom initially, and the same two questions to be answered after they listened to the debate, with a final question that asked whether the debate was held "on an intellectual level that can serve as an example for other discussions"…and with that, their motives are exposed. It wasn't to actually work through the problem, but entirely to give credibility to the creationist position. Contrary to Olson's interpretation, it tells me that this whole farce was a bad idea from the beginning.
When I looked at the numbers, what jumped out at me that there was almost no change in the audience's position. People who came in firmly opposed to teaching ID in the schools left with the same opinion (no surprise there, Bergman was a kook); people who came in demanding that creationism be given equal time left still feeling the same way. There were a couple of crazy people whose opinions did shift — from being initially opposed to creationism to being for including it in the curriculum. I call shenanigans on that; Bergman did not even try to argue for such a position, so these were ringers who walked in, gave false answers to the first questions, and then pretended to have been converted to a pro-creationist stance by Bergman. That is flatly unbelievable.
The numbers were boringly static. The comments were much more entertaining, and I've included them below the fold; to make it a little easier to sort out who was saying what, the comments from evolutionists are in blue, the creationists are in red, and the ones who switched significantly from the two pre-debate questions to the two post-debate questions are in purple.
What I mainly take home from these data is the simple fact that, even though this debate was a complete and embarrassing rout for the creationists, their minds were not changed at all. Debates with creationists are a waste of time, except for the small benefit of entertaining evolutionists with an amusing spectacle, and the larger detriment of giving liars for Jesus an opportunity to piously announce their support for rational discussion…despite the fact that they don't offer rational discussion.
Following are from attendees who were initially against teaching creationism; those who switched to being for creationism are in purple.
Bergman ignored the whole topic. He is an example of how NOT to have a debate.
I think the conversations and questions were remarkably civil, given the subject matter, but as an intellectual exercise, I do not feel that the "yes" side of the argument presented a rational case, based on evidence, for the teaching of ID/creationism in the public school classroom.
"Teaching" is not well defined. Evolution might not be entirely truth but that doesn't mean ID is the solution then. Hence the debate is kind of off-[phase. The irreducible complexity doesn't make sense here.
With the time constraints, the discussion should really have been more focused.
"Dr." Bergman used many fallacies and false information & is a dishonest Discovery Institute henchman.
Last question: Dr. Bergman strongly disagree; Dr. Myers strongly agree,
Hitler? Really?
ID was not defined. I wish Mr. Bergman didn't use a slide show.
Bergman made personal anecdotes rather than talk ID.
Q 5: (Can serve as example) in anthropology or history class.
I was surprised by how much Professor Bergman deviated from the announced topic.
Dr. Bergman's subpar intellectual level hampered my understanding of the discussion.
Although PZ presented his case very well, Dr. Bergman's position was rambling and incoherent. That does not promote an adequate intellectual dialogue.
Dr. Bergman exhibited respect for his opponents. I cannot say the same for Dr. Myers.
The argument presented by Dr. Bergman was much less coherent than that presented by Dr. Myers. He appeared less prepared and not ready to provide a solid answer.
Normal debate usually allows the one who presents first to present last. The one who presents first is at a disadvantage.
Prof Bergman should have turned off his PowerPoint during Prof Myers presentation. Prof Bergman lacked evidence to support his position.
Myers 1, Bergman 0; did not provide facts / evidence or attempt coherent argument.
Dr. Bergman didn't really argue the point.
Bergman = wrong; Myers = right
Discussion debased by argument that the theory of evolution [produced Nazism. Debate was a mismatch.
Bergman was crazy.
Cordial maybe, but both sides need to be intellectual in order to have a discussion.
Thanks PZ!
The moderator was a bit biased (towards PZ); I'm on his side but even I thought the slant was a bit much. (For example letting PZ rebut Jerry's audience Q & A answers but not vice versa.) This got better as the Q & A progressed.
The Nazi comment by Bergman was embarrassing -- poor argument. The argument for ID was weak and largely unfounded -- was this the best defender for the concept we could find?
50% intellectual; 50% foo foo magic.
I wish the defender of ID had been more competent.
Where did you find "Dr." Bergman?
PZ Myers debated intellectually. Dr. Bergman couldn't even explain ID. I don't know how he has the authority to say it should be taught in schools.
Bergman was a woefully inadequate opponent for Dr. Myers. It was uncomfortable to watch such a thorough routing.
I would not want intelligent design taught in school by an atheist because of prejudicial misrepresentation.
Q 5 (Intellectual level) Dr Bergman "Strongly disagree;" PZ Strongly agree.
PZ FTW!
Intelligent design is another way to have religion shoved down our throats. Religion has backed slavery, torture, racism, and intolerance. Humanity needs to get rid of it.
:)
Dog loves you!
This was not a debate. It was a slaughter.
Myers communicated well. Bergman was very hard to follow. Not even sure what his idea is. Get someone who can present a logical and communicable argument.
Dr. Bergman provided no thesis nor supporting evidence.
Freedom of speech is unequal to freedom to teach; science is unequal to national socialism.
I felt the debate was unequal. Although I am admittedly strongly biased, I was more hopeful the quality of the arguments on the Intelligent Design side would be more well thought and argued. I believe there is an argument to be made, but that the ID speaker did not have the debate skills to address it, or the level of knowledge that was neede3d in the areas he addressed. The venue was great. PZ was great. I liked the format of the debate itself. Nice event overall. Thank you.
Poor presentation by Bergman.
Perhaps Dr. Bergman wasn't given enough information, but his presentation seemed far too personal.
Q 5: I cannot circle the answer because only one debater, PZ Myers, followed the prompt of debate. The debater arguing in favor of ID did not follow the prompt and employed painful logical fallacies throughout his talks. His position was dizzying in its use of circular reasoning. On the other hand, PZ Myers was very professional and appropriate in the debate.
Jerry Bergman was all over the place, didn't seem to have a clear understanding of ID -- PZ Myers approached the subject more clearly
In order to teach science, you need a testable hypothesis. There is not one for intelligent design.
Fallacies abound. Bergman clearly hasn't been to an actual evolution class!
Opening person at least 72 "ums." (regarding preamble to the survey, "attempts to interfere with this discussion are considered inappropriate and actually betray a fear that the intellectual position being advocated cannot stand on its own." ) You = better than psychologists at psychoanalysis?
Intellectual level was not equal on both sides.
The theories should be discussed so students can see the falsities and contradictions, but not taught on some level (as) truth, so students understand the importance of the science of evolution.
Dr. Bergman didn't seem to understand his side of the argument. Citing Hitler was just so desperate. Theory doesn't matter? EEE
Dr. Myers discussion was on an intellectual level. Dr. Bergman's presentation was disorganized & heavy on unsupported assertion.
Q 5: (Intellectual level) until Hitler was brought in, then disgrace.
Bergman's presentation was awful -- an uncharitable summary of a bad idea. Myers did OK but did not come across as well prepared.
I thought this was supposed to be about schools. I cannot figure out what Bergman's position was. Don't invite him again.
This didn't seem like much of a debate at all -- Bergman admitted we need scientific method, which Myers has explained ID cannot do. So what exactly is the debate? It seems Bergman just wants discussion in science classrooms About the possible flaws/ wrong things about evolution -- Myers does not seem to oppose scientifically discussing these and coming to a scientific conclusion. Again, what is the debate here? PS I'm not an atheist or ID supporter.... I just support the scientific method.... the only good part was questions, otherwise a total waste of time.
Changing your slides while another person is speaking is RUDE. Dr. Bergman shouldn't waste so much time on irrelevant personal background. Bergman's presentation reminded me of a seminar from my undergraduate education titled "How Not to give a presentation." Visual aids were unclear, even distracting.
Intellectual level would require similar definition of terms which was lacking here. Also, it would help if both participants would agree on the topic beforehand. Dr. Bergman did not keep the topic.
ID, if taught, should not be taught alongside evolution as a science. (If taught) it must be taught by a neutral party at the very least.
Q 5: Intellectual level -- Bergman Strongly disagree; Myers -- Strongly agree. I did not appreciate Bergman's personal negativity towards atheists. I was offended and thus tuned out.
Dr. Bergman, tough crowd. Thanks for arguing your side, What is this new definition of irreducible complexity? What is the normal advantage of private over public schools in science? (more comments in two different handwritings were hard to decipher and appeared to be notes of a private debate.)
Strong disagreement based on Dr. Bergman's presentation, however, agreement based on presentation of ID by those who have an understanding. This was an unfortunately unbalanced discussion. The case for anything related to ID was not made.
Q 2 & 4: "public" teachers."
Loved the moderator!! It may have been good to have a biologist for the ID side too -- it would have been good for them to be on the same page.
Bergman was way off topic, deciding instead to ramble about his life and making non-sense arguments that are irrelevant. Myers stuck to the topic and actually made logical supporting arguments. Bergman also ignored Myers' comments and continued his original refuted arguments.
Q 5: Intellectual level Strongly disagree -- Bergman; Strongly Agree -- Myers.
Following are from attendees who were initially neutral
1st Q: Public - strongly disagree. Private - strongly agree. 2nd Q: I can't answer this as it is poorly worded. 5th Q: was going fine until Hitler was brought up. [strongly against creationism at end of debate]
Q 5: But neither speaker should make snide arrogant comments as Dr. Myers did! [for creationism at end of debate]
The "mediator" was my favorite :) Paul Z. Myers did a much better job of explaining his viewpoints in a coherent way. He keeps it simpler -- on topic [little change]
Dr. Bergman is not very bright. [no change]
Following are from attendees who were initially in favor of teaching creationism. None of these were swayed by the debate.
I was disappointed with Dr. Paul Z. Myers several insults against opposing view in attempt to be funny.
Evolution cannot explain much. We need to be open minded.
I couldn't hear Dr. Myers, he sounded mumbly - he didn't use mike. Moderator didn't use mike well either. I like the idea of academic freedom. How do you debate someone who is pompous? Dr. Myers sounds like Al Gore's, "All debate is over; I'm right." I don't believe Al Gore's Global Climate Change either.
Dr. Myers' arrogance and condescending attitude as well as that of his "disciples" in the audience seems to make it all but impossible to hold an intelligent discussion on this topic.
Q 1 & 3 ID: taught only by teachers who DON'T support ID, but as an exercise in critical thinking skills to debunk ID.
Great moderator! If you're going to finger scientists for the Holocaust, you should finger the church as well. ID needs to expand to a complete theory instead of just criticizing evolution.
PZ said, "work is bad" (regarding) 1. mechanism or theory 2, data (for ID)
Q 5: Intellectual level yes, maybe, example for other discussions, no
Teach all views.
No data or works cited. Very unprofessional from both sides. Not educating.
Not one document was cited from either source.
This was a horrible debate. It was more like a rude comment frenzy.
Evolution is not fact and both ID and evolution deserve to be researched and taught in schools.
Academic freedom is needed in schools and should be given.
Atheists do not want to accept that God is real. I'll pray for them.
How do you explain why humans aren't allowed to kill/eat other humans? Shouldn't that be fine since we are no more than glorified monkeys? God bless.
Faulty logic used by evolutionists.
ID should be "allowed" not required. I was sorry that Mr. Bergman didn't answer some of the questions with better understanding. I am young, yet it seemed to me that I could explain some things better than he did.
Q 5 "Questionable"
I did not find the debate to be appropriate on a civil level. Intelligence should not be determined by belief or unbelief in theories that have not been 100% verified and the intelligence of others should not be insulted based on belief or unbelief in a theory. I did agree that since ID does not have a scientific theory behind it, it should not necessarily be taught in schools. However, there is evidence against evolution that is very valid which is not taught in schools and should at least be presented.
I suppose the argument should be whether or not the theory of evolution is sufficient enough to teach in schools and if other options should be presented. (Other comments that seem to be a side discussion.)
The debaters should be from the same field of science. Thank you for holding a polite, well run debate.
The debating skills of the two are not fairly matched.
Q 1, 3: Private schools can teach what they want. Q 5: This discussion was not.
Since when do moderators enter the debate? I lost respect for P.Z. Myers when every argument was tainted with ad hominem attacks.
Dr. Myers was disrespectful, rude, sarcastic and condescending.
Moderator -- very subjective. He was (illegible)with Myers!
There has been ID research and Dr. Bergman did a not so great job of presenting the data. You must provide the hungry dog with a steak before you can take away his bone.
Presenters were weak in their style & lack of resources.
Myers was rude. He should stand up when he talks, too.
Myers talked about evidence (but) never gave it to back it up. (He) was RUDE! Just plain bashing Christians. Paul Myers said evolution was "fact;" it's a theory, therefore it's not a principle which is proven... If evolution is a fact, how can it be taught (as such)? Where's the evidence that he kept talking about?
Q 2, 4: teachers whether or not they support ID should be able to teach it without punishment. Q 1, 3: I would add that other theories (be allowed) besides creation, ID & evolution.
Comments
Posted by: David Smart | November 23, 2009 9:56 PM
Only 290 survey responses? The other 210 probably left the venue thinking there was no need for a survey to decide who's position prevailed.
Posted by: wildcardjack | November 23, 2009 9:57 PM
I'm not too familiar with debate formats, but would it be against the rules to come to a debate around evolution and breakout a speech on cognitive dissonance and irrational belief?
That does seem a topic that would incense a crowd to rise up and throw chairs?
Posted by: llewelly | November 23, 2009 9:57 PM
No control group. Forget it.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 23, 2009 9:59 PM
PZ -- in my field, which entails trying to remove old dams to restore riverine ecosystems back to a functional state, i see the same dynamic as you describe above. In any given public meeting or forum, the crowd is 90 percent partisan, with maybe 10 percent swayable and the rest ... not. But my context is different than yours, in that when I talk, it's because a regulatory decision is on the line that will either help or hinder the specific dam removal effort, so every "vote" I can grab from the other side is important and could be crucial. Moreover, my absence or unwillingness to engage guarantees the other side will have free rein to spew unadulterated, unscientific swill on everyone. So I have to show up. But again, my context is where an immediate decision will be made. Yours is more abstract, without an immediate set of upside or downside consequences in the world. But that might not be true. You never know who you might reach.
Thanks very much for doing it.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
November 23, 2009 10:02 PM
Bergman = wrong; Myers = right
That was me.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 23, 2009 10:03 PM
How about evolution taught by a creationist?
Posted by: David Horton | November 23, 2009 10:03 PM
"How do you explain why humans aren't allowed to kill/eat other humans? Shouldn't that be fine since we are no more than glorified monkeys?" Yes, PZ, how do you explain that atheists can't eat fundamentalists? Eh?
Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 10:07 PM
I dont know if we can just conclude they gave a wrong answer first to then pretend to have been converted.Might have been accidental, might have been really converted, counting error, who knows.
I sure wouldn't put it past them, but I'd be cautious to just deduce they did it on purpose.
And to point out that debating creationists or trying to make creationists think for themselves is futile? In other news, a bag of rice has fallen over in China.
Posted by: flyonethewall | November 23, 2009 10:08 PM
i would be intereseted in what constitutes "rude" to the creotards. its seems they were quite offended by PZ. Perhaps rude implies the mere existence of atheists and gall to challenge them.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
November 23, 2009 10:12 PM
Well, sure, in theory...
(/But in more practical terms, there's just no one likes baloney that much anyway.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 23, 2009 10:12 PM
Keep up the good work, PZ.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 23, 2009 10:13 PM
I'd rather be a glorified monkey than a shoddy copy of God.
Posted by: Patrick | November 23, 2009 10:14 PM
"How do you explain why humans aren't allowed to kill/eat other humans? Shouldn't that be fine since we are no more than glorified monkeys?"
I hate to break it to you, but we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to ensure that we have the very best tools available specifically for when we go kill other humans.
Eating them, well, we atheists don't talk about that.
Posted by: Richard Prins | November 23, 2009 10:18 PM
"It wasn't to actually work through the problem, but entirely to give credibility to the creationist position."
And this is news? Maybe they'll be able to produce some juicy quotes (mined) from what 'an atheist scientist' said who was willing to 'debate' them, but in general it's just a waste of time, other than to show they're simply full of (sh)it.
Posted by: Grev | November 23, 2009 10:22 PM
The theories should be discussed so students can see the falsities and contradictions, but not taught on some level (as) truth, so students understand the importance of the science of evolution.
I like this as a rational reason for the teaching of any "alternative" hypotheses in schools. Also, the way they should be taught is to emphasize the difference between the layman's definition of theory and the scientific definition of theory (as clearly ID and creationism are using the former definition as opposed to the latter.)
Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 23, 2009 10:26 PM
Sorry, maybe someone could shed light on this for me-
but PZ, why did you ever do it since we all know it's a waste of time and worse, it boosts the "teach the controversy" claim?
Incidentally there recently were some articles in the Scientific American about the bearing of evolutionary biology on pediatric neurology-you might guess "doctor" Bergman might be interested. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: realinterrobang
|
November 23, 2009 10:26 PM
[H]ow do you explain that atheists can't eat fundamentalists?
Rogue prions.
Posted by: Jarred C.
|
November 23, 2009 10:29 PM
@ flyonthewall #9
"I would be interested in what constitutes "rude" to the creotards."
From the last radio debate where I heard PZ Myers, the creationists think that being called "ignorant" on a subject where one actually has little-to-no knowledge is an insult.
Posted by: syferdet
|
November 23, 2009 10:30 PM
Didn't Dr. Bergman win the toss and choose to receive?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 23, 2009 10:31 PM
There's been a recent move in Congress to rewrite federal legislation on educational issues by replacing "Mentally Retarded" (MR) with "Intellectually Deficient" (ID).
Perhaps a few politicians are paying attention to the evo-creo debate after all.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 23, 2009 10:31 PM
Ignorance of what ID is (i.e. not science) - check.
Evolution is only a theory - check.
Teach both together - check.
Atheists don't want to believe in god - check.
Yeah, I've pretty much got my bingo.
Posted by: jafsica | November 23, 2009 10:32 PM
Changing your slides while another person is speaking is RUDE. Dr. Bergman shouldn't waste so much time on irrelevant personal background. Bergman's presentation reminded me of a seminar from my undergraduate education titled "How Not to give a presentation." Visual aids were unclear, even distracting.
That was me.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 23, 2009 10:38 PM
Yes, Bergman won the toss. It was entirely by his choice.
I didn't know until after the debate that while I'd been speaking, Bergman had been flipping around in his powerpoint file -- when I mentioned Intelligent Design creationism, for instance, he put up his slide about ID on the screen behind me.
It was incredibly sleazy.
Posted by: JSW
|
November 23, 2009 10:40 PM
Have you tasted fundamentalist? There's not enough steak sauce in the world to make that stuff palatable.Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 10:42 PM
Dr. Bergman doesn't know what irreducible complexity is, and he's debating about intelligetn design. That is funny stuff. Dr. Bergman, the "dog ate my homework" Dr.
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 10:44 PM
Intelligent Design, the "dog ate my homework" of science research.
Posted by: Islander | November 23, 2009 10:47 PM
Yeah, Myers, why didn't you ignore the topic and attempt to teach the unifying theory of biology in one hour? Bergman presented evidence, didn't you hear about the carbon rings? Pfft.
Posted by: David Smart | November 23, 2009 10:49 PM
Or, in dyslectic, "god ate my homework"...
Posted by: Patrick Julius | November 23, 2009 10:49 PM
We should definitely have a Creationist drinking game.
A proposal:
"evolution is only a theory"---1 drink.
"teach the controversy"---2 drinks.
"atheists hate God"---3 drinks.
quote mining---4 drinks.
slander about Darwin---5 drinks.
slander about Darwin involving quote-mining---10 drinks.
We'd better use something weak, like hard cider; else we'll suffer toxic shock.
Posted by: Ian Fiddlebury | November 23, 2009 10:56 PM
I think we could extend it to "Debates are pointless". The whole concept of having a debate assumes that people have reasons, in the rational sense, for believing what they do. They don't. Most people believe the things they believe because they want to believe them, because they were brought up that way or because of peer pressure. Their beliefs can thus not be swayed by argument - you're as it were completely missing the target and for most people logic isn't the decider of all arguments, it's just another on the ladder of reasons, and usually near the lowest rung. If you want to change minds, your best bet is to start with clear minds (with respect to the position you're advocating) and since those people usually won't come to a debate because of lack of interest, debates are pointless. Instead, write articles for magazines with a general audience. Or write for kids.
Posted by: Mary | November 23, 2009 10:58 PM
@Douglas Watts: that's exactly what I saw at a recent CDC meeting on vaccinations. They came in 90% fiercely sided (and unfortunately about 90% of them were anti-vax).
These events do not draw the undecided. Around the Specter _Denialism_ book discussion I'm hearing about how we need to have a public debate on synthetic biology. But the same thing will happen. Polar sides will show up. Almost no one else.
I'm stumped on the solution. I'm getting tired of the yelling, but I'm also not ready to stop as the crazees run amok.
Posted by: Nerdette | November 23, 2009 10:59 PM
Really, why do fundies insist on using legal names for people they dislike? Is it an attempt at an insult? I don't like you, so I'll call you by a name you don't normally go by?
Interesting that some of the creationists claim that they couldn't understand PZ or the moderator. An indication of the age demographic, perhaps? Or does sciency-jargon instantly translate into mumbles to those that don't want to hear it?
Posted by: Patrick Julius | November 23, 2009 11:00 PM
In all seriousness, I do think you did the right thing by debating, PZ. It's very sad that creationists are taken seriously, but ignoring them won't make them go away. It seems better to continually trounce them in debate, hopefully convincing a few people along the way.
Unless anyone else has a better proposal?
Posted by: SEF | November 23, 2009 11:03 PM
Teach the
scandalcontroversy:"Moderator ... was (illegible)with Myers!"
Posted by: llewelly | November 23, 2009 11:07 PM
We atheists feast on only the finest freshly born innocent babies.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 23, 2009 11:09 PM
Let's see
PZ rude but ultimately on topic and well prepared
Bergman unprepared, off topic, sleazy and a bit unhinged
Win all the way around
Posted by: llewelly | November 23, 2009 11:14 PM
They are consciously imitate the habit of some parents who call their children by their full names when they feel their children are out of control. It is a deliberate attempt to perpatrate the notion that they are the adults, and their opponents are, at best, unruly children. It's a kind of ad hominen attack.Posted by: Bunk | November 23, 2009 11:26 PM
I was just watching "Jesus Camp." I had to come here for a quick breath of sanity. OK, I'm going back in!
Posted by: Thess | November 23, 2009 11:30 PM
Sure, Bergman lacked a command of the subject, presented no data, and generally sounded like he had no clue whatsoever. . . but P.Z. didn't stand up when he spoke!!!
Posted by: tokenadult | November 23, 2009 11:30 PM
"I was surprised by how much Professor Bergman deviated from the announced topic."
That was my comment. In formal debate (I used to be a debate coach, and am still a debate judge, so I care about this), there is a resolution (as there was in this debate) and that resolution defines what is on-topic for the debate. The resolution should always be designed to advocate for CHANGE IN THE STATUS QUO, and the affirmative speaker speaks first in the initial speeches, and last in the rebuttals. Bergman started off all wrong by saying that intelligent design is already taught in school classrooms (do you all remember that?) but spent PAINFULLY little time developing constructive arguments why that should be so.
As someone who agrees with PZ on the substance, my friendly advice to you (PZ) is to be yet more polite and yet more respectful of people who don't agree than you have previous tried in such formats. You say that in your classes at the University of Minnesota Morris you can teach a lecture section full of students who disagree with you and be respectful to them as you teach them the facts. Treat the audience like college freshman in your own college, and maybe you'll hit an even better tone and manner of presentation for winning people over.
Posted by: Jessica | November 23, 2009 11:31 PM
I have to wonder if this feedback was in written, anonymous form. If it was, I'm curious as to know who would actually raise their hands to be counted as pro-creationist with their peers looking at them. I'm not saying that would be the best way to get the most honest results, but would the numbers shift and change? I'm willing to bet they would.
I don't completely agree that debating creationists is a bad idea, PZ. You might have gotten to one person in that audience, whether they said so or not, to agree. That's still a move in the right direction.
Posted by: Ompompanoosuc | November 23, 2009 11:33 PM
@29 Patrick Julius
Let's not use my uncle's cider. 10 dixie cups of it and you could perform dental procedures on yourself. I think the trick is starting with the barrel already half full of bourbon....
Posted by: And-U-Say | November 23, 2009 11:44 PM
You guys have it wrong! Debates like this one can be a lot of fun. You just need the right kind of entertainment. Like ID BINGO! Make up cards with stock ID trash phrases on them (in BINGO format of course) and hand them out ahead of time. Imagine the fun when right in the middle of a talk (or better yet, in the middle of the Q/A) someone stands up and yells "BINGO"!
Loads of fun.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 23, 2009 11:45 PM
I think we could extend it to "Debates are pointless".
Of course not.
Debate is entertainment. But it's also an entertaining way to air ideas - some of them will stick and some of them won't. That's exactly the same as with books, articles, blogs, television, radio, etc. - you try to get ideas out there and some of them will sink in to some people's consciousness. It appears to me now that some people get their ideas from reading, others from having someone tell them, others from the cover of Weekly World News; but it doesn't matter. You just keep putting them out there and they'll live or die by how much they appear to match people's experience of reality. Deciding "the other guys don't play fair!" and taking your marbles home cedes the field to them, and they get the microphone all to themselves.
Another thing: it builds up the awareness in the other side's mind that they're lying. Maybe they feel they're doing it in a good cause, but they're aware that they're not dealing with reality and every time one of them pads his resume with a cheesy fake degree, or weasels around with debaters' tricks to avoid a rhetorical goring - they know, they know. It's got to suck for them.
These things take time; unlike in the "good old days" when the church could just shut you up with a bit of the comfy chair, these guys are blinking owlishly in the spotlights of reality and they know their shit is weak and that in a few generations it'll be all over but the tears.
So, yes, debate them. Don't expect a clear victory and high fives all around. But, seriously, whenever these guys open their mouths they make fools of themselves. Unless they're the only guy at the mic and then they can sturm und drang and puff themselves up.
Posted by: Muzz | November 23, 2009 11:46 PM
To avoid confusion, I think we must refer to Ross as 'the Twins' Olson'
Posted by: Mike | November 23, 2009 11:50 PM
When do those of us not from Minnesota get to see video from the debate?
Posted by: eddie
|
November 23, 2009 11:53 PM
OT but: HTTP://XKCD.COM/666/ There is evil in this world. As for debating; I think there's a lot of benefit to be had by interested onlookers, but they would not be in the audience on the night. They will be here, tho.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 24, 2009 12:15 AM
Cause they'll rot your teeth out, David.
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 24, 2009 12:21 AM
The Ultimate Diet:
The only thing you can eat is other people on the Ultimate Diet.
SMBC
Posted by: MadScientist | November 24, 2009 12:29 AM
Creationism deserves to be researched? Ahahahaha! After 100 years of modern geology and biology, including evolution, creationism only deserves ridicule. The creation stories are so unimaginative that I wouldn't even recommend them as literature unless someone was studying the literature of ancient societies. And yet some people are so unsophisticated as to believe the stories ... hmm, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd love to sell them.
Posted by: Charles Evo | November 24, 2009 12:36 AM
Well, Dawkins doesn't do the debates, for good reasons.
I predict the PZ will stop debating
Creationists, but he'll not tell us why,
at first.
That secret info will be saved for PZ's
new book, which he's working on.
Posted by: tokenadult | November 24, 2009 12:41 AM
A testable prediction, from either Jerry Coyne's recent book Why Evolution Is True or Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth or both: creationists don't mention biogeography when listing arguments for evolution that they have considered and refuted. Proven true at the debate. Creationists run away from one of Darwin's original evidences of evolution from The Origin of Species, 150 years ago: how species are distributed around the world today on islands and on various continents. So let's all hammer away at that argument, as it is scary to the history-deniers.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau
|
November 24, 2009 12:44 AM
Umm, yeah. Is this a surprising result?
Posted by: My Lord! | November 24, 2009 12:46 AM
"How do you explain why humans aren't allowed to kill/eat other humans? Shouldn't that be fine since we are no more than glorified monkeys? God bless."
As a former Jew I am offended. I though we had the monopoly on eating Christian babies?
Posted by: Aquaria | November 24, 2009 12:55 AM
As someone who agrees with PZ on the substance, my friendly advice to you (PZ) is to be yet more polite and yet more respectful of people who don't agree than you have previous tried in such formats.
What fucking bullshit.
You're assuming that PZ was actually rude, without knowing for sure. You're assuming that theotards aren't disingenuous fuckwits with skin thin enough to make eczema look pleasant.
Here's an actual conversation I had with a theotard:
Fucking moron: What church do you go to?
Only sane person in vicinity: None.
Fucking moron: Then would you like to go to mine.
Only sane person in vicinity: No, thank you.
Fucking moron: Why not?
Only sane person in vicinity: I don't believe in God.
Fucking moron: Well! You don't have to be so rude about it!
The point:
No matter how nice you are to morons, especially theotard morons, they still take offense.
Morons like that can go fuck themselves.
One other thing: What point is there in being civil to morons who will distort, misrepresent and just fucking lie? That's rude to anyone with a brain.
The liars can go fuck themselves, too.
Keep speaking the truth, PZ, and the morons can go fuck themselves if they can't handle it.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 24, 2009 12:57 AM
No, it's not surprising. I keep hoping, though, and keep getting disappointed.
The one positive result this one had is that it thoroughly discredited one apologist for creationism, Jerry Bergman, who even the creationists will be a bit shy in supporting from now on. One down, a few thousand more to go.
Posted by: ckitching
|
November 24, 2009 1:00 AM
I thought you just killed them for their blood to use in your scary rituals? These things get so confusing...Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 1:12 AM
The debaters should be from the same field of science. Thank you for holding a polite, well run debate.
Would it be possible for such a debate to happen?
'snicker'
Posted by: IBY | November 24, 2009 1:22 AM
Hhmm... Notice how only creationists claim PZ Myers was rude, except for one blue guy.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 1:26 AM
IBY, tone is one of the favorite attacking points of creations. It is also one of their most silly weapons.
Posted by: Jason Febery | November 24, 2009 1:30 AM
Typical creationist nonsense. Never addressing the issue, and trying to create a false sense of controversy.
--
http://jasonfebery.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Deiloh | November 24, 2009 1:33 AM
"How do you explain why humans aren't allowed to kill/eat other humans? Shouldn't that be fine since we are no more than glorified monkeys? God bless."
execution of criminals
the current U.S. war
Alive (Andes survivors)
Donner Party
etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 1:34 AM
Please, just pretend that I used creationists instead of creations.
Posted by: Eric | November 24, 2009 1:37 AM
That's my favorite comment!
Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 1:43 AM
I have yet to attend a debate between a normal person and scientist and a deluded lying distorting and maybe a little bit mentally frail creationist, and their respective audience/followers, it's not going to happen in a hurry since both my country of birth and my country of residence dont have any publicly known debatable creationists, but I cant even imagine what it must be like for a pleasant humble and knowledgeable guy like PZ to go and "debate" such a cretin.
I fully understand RD's position to not debate them, and I think noone should and that they are best ignored and left alone, simply because, as this "debate" shows, no creationist will ever be swayed or made to use what's left of their brain to think for themselves.Also, for the ID crowd as for any fundamentalists, any news is good news, any mention of them and their wacko ideas is good for them.
I say let them fall into obscurity and concentrate on the officially sanctioned and enabled christian sects, like the RCC, let's debate them.As long as they still have any intellectually capable theologians that can debate, they're dying out fast.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 24, 2009 1:50 AM
By PZ going to the "show" (which it undeniably is) he is giving strength and succor to young people who might have lied to their Fundamentalist parents about their reasons for going and desperately want to find a way out. As a youth, having mentors and role models is very important, and seeing them stand up to rank gooberishness and answering it with clear voice and fact can be a very formative moment for a young scientist. Seeing their mentors shy away and retreat can have the opposite effect.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | November 24, 2009 2:19 AM
I kinda agree with Douglas. We know the god-botherers will hold debates amongst themselves if necessary, to keep their profile high. Why cede the ground to them? They'll only pull the 'evolution supporters cannot debate on the evidence' card, galling though that may be.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 2:29 AM
Lee,
well then let them debate between themselves. I'm just wondering what good a "debate" does if one party is willfully deafmuteblind.
Well that's the point, they'll pull that card whatever you do, and if you debate them or not !
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | November 24, 2009 2:32 AM
I didn't leave a comment, but I must confess to cheating. In the pre-test of the poll, I put "undecided" and in the post-test, I put "strongly disagree."
I thought of it as a pointless poll, anyway. PZ's presentation was rude because he embarrassed an idiot, and we shouldn't be doing that. No, that isn't nice at all. We should have encouraged the poor man for being able to stand up and talk at the same time.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 24, 2009 2:33 AM
Aquaria,
Maybe you missed that tokenadult was at the debate and left one of the quoted comments. Is an actual witness not entitled to an opinion? Or are you maintaining that PZ's rudness or lack of it is not intersubjectively verifiable, in which case why even talk about it?
But yeah, the morons can go fuck themselves.
Rorschach: you're a German in Oz, right? The only creationist-vs-scientist debate I ever went to was Duane Gish and Ian Plimer, in about 1988. It was horrible on both sides; total slimebags. I'd never heard of Plimer before, but I found him offensive as a spokesman for science, so rabid that Gish was quite dignified in comparison, though of course he spoke nothing but obvious lies. We've heard far too much of Plimer more recently as an AGW denier.
Much better, around the same time, was a session by Alex Ritchie (palaeoichthyologist at the Australian Museum, one of my early heroes) presenting creo-busting arguments for teachers etc., without sharing the stage in a 'debate'. All that sort of thing is on the interwebs now, but it was valuable at the time.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 2:43 AM
John Scanlon,
that's why I'm far more interested in taking down the lying hypocrites,homophobes and pedophiles of the RCC or Rudd's evangelical mob, let's debate those folks and drag their lunacy out into the open.Was very interesting and encouraging to read the reactions to the recent "Age" article !
Are we seeing you at the convention?
Posted by: Orycteropus
|
November 24, 2009 2:45 AM
"There were a couple of crazy people whose opinions did shift — from being initially opposed to creationism to being for including it in the curriculum. I call shenanigans on that; Bergman did not even try to argue for such a position, so these were ringers who walked in, gave false answers to the first questions, and then pretended to have been converted to a pro-creationist stance by Bergman."
So you get some results, and you immediatly decide to declare a part of them false, based on your personal opinion, and then make up some vague theory on why they turned up, which you don't research further.
You've learned a lot from your opponents ;-)
Also, I suspect the quoted comments have been edited, for they all seem to spell "Myers" :p
Posted by: BrightIncite.com | November 24, 2009 2:45 AM
PZ is right when he says that debating a creationist is pointless if the point is to enlighten them. It's like comparing apples to steam engines. Actually, that analogy doesn't work. Apples and steam engines actually exist. It's more like comparing my girlfriend's farts to steam engines.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 2:49 AM
Don't hold back here, tell us more...:-)
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 24, 2009 2:58 AM
BrightIncite, I see what you did there (but I'm sorry to tell you it means your girlfriend is imaginary).
Rorschach; don't know about Melbourne, doesn't look likely now (hatching a plan to head towards Cape York after the Wet, instead). Sometimes it sucks to live in a remote mining town, you pay through the nose to get back to civilization.
Posted by: Kubush | November 24, 2009 3:26 AM
"I couldn't hear Dr. Myers, he sounded mumbly - he didn't use mike. Moderator didn't use mike well either."
LOL. Where is Mike when you need him?
Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 24, 2009 4:05 AM
Very few people go from learned Darwinists to creationists.
Many people go from creationist to Darwinist.
As my friend Clinton Townsend of Skowhegan, Maine says,
"We are the water that wears away the stone."
P.S. I'll debate these mofos in a hahht beat.
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
November 24, 2009 4:07 AM
Let me know when there is a real debate, because almost without exception what are being billed as debates don't remotely resemble anything even approximating a 'debate'.
This is hardly limited to what is happening to PZ with the creationists. Just look at the Presidential debates to see how far this altered debate meme has traveled.
People today wouldn't know a true debate if it bit them in the ass.
As to whether it's worth the trouble or aggravation to continue to engage with idiots? Your call.
Enjoy.
Posted by: PenguinFactory
|
November 24, 2009 4:27 AM
Anyone else find it interesting that most of the pro-creationist side are just criticizing PZ for being insulting or "arrogant"? I get the feeling they care more about personality than evidence.
Posted by: Rick R | November 24, 2009 4:38 AM
#79, it's creotard 101.
When you don't have a leg to stand on, whine about tone.
They do it ALL THE TIME.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 24, 2009 4:42 AM
So which is it? Is ID a religion or a science? If it's a science, the religious predisposition of the instructor does not matter. If it's religion, it should not be taught in public schools.
We ARE allowed to kill other humans dipshit. What the fuck do you think is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan? There is no divine intervention stopping bullets. Not on our side, not on theirs. Stop listening to Stan Ridgway, and get with the fucking program.
Chastising others, for something you fail to comprehend, is a logical fallacy. And highly ironic in this context.
So suggesting someone is a fucking Nazi because they don't believe in god (or more specifically YOUR GOD), isn't an ad hominem attack? Are you serious?
The body of evidence in favour of evolution is too large to carry around in a backpack. It's much bigger than your precious bible, and your tiny little mind wouldn't be able to comprehend it all, even if we somehow managed to show it all to you at once.I think creationists are probably the strongest evidence to support that we evolved from a lesser species. They are the missing link.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 24, 2009 4:46 AM
"Normal debate usually allows the one who presents first to present last."
What the hell does that mean?
"Yes, PZ, how do you explain that atheists can't eat fundamentalists?"
Easy: because fundamentalists are tasteless.
Have you noted that a few answers among the supporters of teaching ID obviously wish it to be taught as an example of bad science? This is Larry Moran's position, for instance, and there are some good arguments for it (and one against it: lack of time).
Posted by: slang | November 24, 2009 4:54 AM
I've eaten other humans. They never objected and seemed quite grateful.
Posted by: DLC
|
November 24, 2009 5:17 AM
Debate itself can be a spectator sport. However, it's also a way for ideas to get discussed. Sometimes (like in this case) the idea is a silly one that should be tossed aside. Debating a creationist, however, is a real waste of time.
The creationist -- oh, excuse me, cdesignproponentsist will simply ignore any facts which unpleasantly point toward his arguement being so much eyewash, Gish-Gallop and otherwise attempt to not win the debate so much as muddy the waters enough that they can go home and convince themselves they won.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 24, 2009 5:20 AM
Expecting a balanced debate between Creationism and Rationality is like expecting an intellectually honest religion...t'will never 'appen!
By its very definition Creationism is a position that has no data and no evidence.
It is an argument that is not even an argument.
How can it be debated?
That is why these shenanigans always go as they do, Creationists cannot argue the points, they are given no choice but to prevaricate, whine about the opposition, lie and make shit up, they have a certain leeway given they have no definitive borders, and they use the inherent manoeuvring space for all they are worth.
Attacking evolutionary theory is the main focus, simply because that is the one scientific theory that manages the most embarrassing counter evidence and that does actual fatal damage to the sky fairy premise.
They have to discredit it, call it into doubt, cast aspersions on it and when all else fails, label it NAZI.
They are simply trying to manipulate an audience, same old same old!
And some do it better then others, but they all do it...or try!
Those are the tactics they always use from TV pundits pimping for jeebus to editors and journo's looking for a kissy from the deluded.
No media outlet actually slams it for what it is, they like circulation figures to much.
Even New Scientist is not immune from mooning after headlines that raise the profile of a publication.
Since the 'Darwin was wrong' fiasco methinks they shot themselves in the arse.
Not sure the thought that one through at all...shoddy behaviour whatever and stinks of apologetics.
Creationists have no intention of actually debating anything, cos they cannot given the laws of debate.
All they have is the fall back of proselyting, playing the 'oh woe is us' and the mantra of secularists hating sweet jeebus.
Or boasting about degree mill letters after their name which mean less then shit on a shoe but smells about the same.
ID is a con, the courts have even branded it thus because it is, and no amount of hand wringing and appeals in the media that they are ignored by real scientists will change the fact that they are snake oil salesmen flogging tatty goods under the trade descriptions act.
It is just that they can cower behind the ample skirts of mother church, basically immune from the nasty wasty atheists & secularist that want to destroy their warm fuzzy feeling of lusty wusty for jeebus.
At least that is what they like to project, the reality being that atheism and secularist alike cannot give a flying fuck what they anaesthetise their so called sad excuse for a mind with...the point being that fairy stories sensationalism, little white lies and wishful thinking have absolutely no place in grown up education, and certainly not an evidenced based discipline like science.
It is not the debate they are after it is the exposure and the hope against hope that they get a quote mine outta the opposition.
They are like any branded product the name has to be seen everywhere and all over the media outlets, they will not be content if it dissipates out off the headlines and as the chattering point in certain circles.
Matters not a lot if the actual debate is a rout, they achieve press mention, thus giving the impression they are a serious organisation genuinely debating the principles.
More people will read they are debating against science then will actually have been at the debate...numbers infected and impressions made, that is their holy grail.
They have to try and keep it in view, again hoping that the fact it is there all the time will inoculate the general public and enable it to blend into the sociological hubdub of society.
Just to be accepted as a point of view, that will enable further assaults into the target area, the classroom.
They are trying to get it accepted as a buzzword for 'modern' religious faith, the updated all singing all dancing alternative to the standard stodgy church and biblical treatment.
That is all they got, and as such it is non-debatable, because it is total inane and incredibly stunted childish bullshite, and nothing more. and it will be no more then that, ever, but if they can only fool enough people...well worth a punt from their perspective!
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 24, 2009 5:26 AM
I would have found it very difficult NOT to be condescending to someone who treated the debate, his opponent and his audience the way that Bergman did.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 24, 2009 5:38 AM
I'm disappointed with the lack of YAY JESUS ! comments.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/oh_no_i_was_graded.php
Posted by: shonny
|
November 24, 2009 6:04 AM
Trying to make IDiots, creationists, and the rest of the religious mobs actually learn about anything from outside their little enclosure, is like teaching bricks to swim.
And having a debate with them has much of the same result, because you argue with some that have total disregard for logic, facts, comprehension, and reality.
Fight them, yes, but don't give the dumbfucks the time of the day!
Posted by: Joe
|
November 24, 2009 6:09 AM
This is the problem. Any debate with the Creationists elevates their argument. It's entertaining, but really detrimental to public opinion. This is why the Creationists tactic is to cut'n'paste minutiae of detail - this way evolution looks 'controversial'.
The best way to tackle this is to cut the argument dead. Equate Creationism to anti-science. Point them to an internet resource that addresses all the common, overused and repeated arguments.
It was fun arguing, but I feel that it's too damaging to give any more credence to their position.
Posted by: Sigmund | November 24, 2009 6:11 AM
To me, it seems that there is an inherent problem with debating biology with creationists in front of creationist audiences. The problem is that they don't actually know enough biology for it to make sense to them. Lets face it, these people can listen to a Kent Hovind tape or watch Ray Comforts Banana youtube video and conclude that those sorts of "arguments" make perfect sense - much more sense than the consensus of the entire adult scientific community!
Its a bit like debating with a group of individuals with knowledge of only one language and who thus deny that an alternative like french is a real language. You stand up there, read from a series of poems, prose and songs, list off the famous writers and classic pieces of literature, discuss the history and use of that language around the world and show them scenes from famous french plays and movies. At the end of it you look at them and say, "doesn't all this evidence convince you?"
And they look at you and say,
"Yes it does convince me.
It convinces me that it's all nonsense. I didn't understand a word of it so it's clearly not a real language!"
My conclusion from this is not that we should avoid debating creationists but we must make that sort of debate something that they seek to avoid.
Instead of listing fossil evidence and genetic similarities (all completely over their heads) why not go into the debate with the objective of planting a seed of doubt in their minds. One should have an aim of getting them to see the value of critical thinking above all else.
If one must debate them then do it in a manner that discomforts them (pardon the pun!). Why not be part of the creationism side! Argue for an alternative form of creationism (Hindu, Chinese, Tribal, FSM etc). Its all very well debating 'technobabble' spouting scientists but its a different matter when you are faced with an alternative creationism story that is completely opposed to your own and has exactly the same merits in terms of evidence (but is clearly false - even Christians know that!).
Posted by: Wormfood | November 24, 2009 6:19 AM
I find it amusing that even the cretinists acknowledge how poor Dr. Bergman was.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 24, 2009 6:43 AM
I'm personally torn on the issue of whether creationists should be debated in public or not.
Public debates are a better venue for theater than they are for intellectual discussions. The side that focuses on presentation and "winning" the debate will have an advantage over the one interested in intellectual honesty and truth. Online discussions have certain advantages. The Gish Gallop tactic(aka, burying your opponent in bullshit) of spouting as many lies and half-truths you can so that your lies-to-word ratio is almost 1:1 can be effective in public debates. For each lie your opponent must either use part of their time for rebutting the lie (which takes longer than it telling the lie itself) or fail to address it and thus let it go uncriticized. The Gish Gallop tactic is almost completely ineffective online. There is generally no time limit for online discussions (remember the several MONTHS and threads spent here debating Alan Clarke ?!) so the other side can spend as much time and energy refuting arguments as they want. You also have an entire internet of information at your disposal and sites like talk.origins have thoroughly demolished many creationist arguments.
I think there's also some risk of giving creationists what they really want: legitimacy. The fact that virtually no scientist believes in creationism and that no papers at all in biology support it will be outweighed (in their minds) by the fact that there is a scientist on stage discussing the matter. If the scientist is spending time on it there must be something to it!!1!
On the other hand, there are some opportunities. The evolution side may be reaching a segment of population that usually doesn't hear from them. Now, in this particular debate no creationists were swayed, but that's not really surprising. Not many people have their views on the spot. When it does happen it's often a slow process. Those arguments you used are seeds that may one day grow. Granted the vast majority of creationist minds are barren earth but for a few, especially the young, these seedlings may have a chance.
Also, as Bergman (unintentionally) showed it could be a good venue for the creationists themselves to show their lack of rational arguments and their despicable tactics.
/long rant debating self about debating
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 24, 2009 6:51 AM
I should add to #92 that more important than the small percentage of creationists who might be persuaded is the large percentage of undecideds. These debates may contrast the methods of science to those of creationism and may end up reaching them.
Posted by: Ric | November 24, 2009 6:58 AM
This was my favorite comment:
"I don't believe Al Gore's Global Climate Change either."
Oh really? Since you're obviously bursting at the seems to do so, why don't you list the rest of the right-wing-nut denialist views while you are at it?
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | November 24, 2009 7:48 AM
As the man said: you cannot reason people out of a belief they did not reason themselves into.
Dawkins is right. Don't even dignify these imbeciles by debating with them. They're only worthy of mockery and ridicule; nothing more.
Posted by: Felix | November 24, 2009 7:52 AM
So, Bergman thinks ID is about making individual atoms, and Comfort thinks ID is about making people from mud.
Does even a majority in the pro-ID camp know what their chosen ideology is? That it's supposedly about biology, and not religious? Everybody knows there isn't a single ID supporter who doesn't have both feet firmly implanted in Christian dogma. Ok, I haven't asked the Raelians yet, and Däniken has been silent on the matter I think.
They've been very efficiently dismantling their own purpose and goals these last years.
Posted by: Felix | November 24, 2009 7:54 AM
I need to add to my post that of course some IDers are Muslims.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 7:58 AM
Being that they can't come up with a single Theory of ID, even a poorly formatted one, I'm not shocked.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | November 24, 2009 8:06 AM
You missed an important point, Jack. They creationists brought their kids. It may be akin for a creationist taking their kids to a porn movie in order to show them porn is bad for you. Even though the kids might pretend to be disgusted, they learn that there is a whole world that their parents aren't telling them
Some of this kids listened to PZ Myers and thought "Oh, wait. So that's how science works?" And then a seed has been planted and they will want to find out more, and someday, when they reach the college level they will be receptive to learning the ways that science works.
And even if they are remedial in what they need to catch up on, they will be ready to learn and excited. And that's why these things should go on, especially considering the way that PZ opened.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 24, 2009 8:07 AM
I think these kind of debates are good, for a couple of reasons. The entertainment value of having a creationist ripped apart never ceases to amuse me for one, and unfortunately, if we didn't have competent people like PZ actually doing the ripping apart, we would have incompetents on stage, actually failing at the real science and giving the creationists more credibility. Regardless of how many people in the audience actually were swayed by any of the points made, the fact that these days the whole debate can be disseminated online, in such places as this, and other blogs, makes them worth while for debunking the ridiculous claims creationists make, and also for ridiculing the stupidity of creationist supporters, and people like Bergman who are considered creditable. Win win in my opinion.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 24, 2009 8:17 AM
Debates with creationists are a waste of time
That's true except when PZ is in the debate.
What is a waste of time is trying to explain simple scientific concepts to a creationist.
I recently, as an experiment, visited the blog of a very educated creationist who invoked the brain-dead Ray Comfort in his blog.
He seemed very intelligent and he admitted Ray Comfort was not too bright. He had a masters in something and his library contains 10,000 books, so this wasn't the usual uneducated moron most creationists are.
So I tried to explain one of my favorite evidences for evolution, putting it in my own words so even a five year old could understand, and I also gave him a paragraph from Jerry Coyne's book, and a youtube video so he would have no excuse to not understand it.
He never tried to understand. He would keep giving me links to the Discovery Institute. When I explained why their website makes me want to puke, he gave me some "the creator did it" websites.
When it became obvious he was hopelessly brainwashed, I asked him "Would you be more willing to accept evolution in a universe without woo-woo?"
Then he felt insulted and he asked me to leave, and this is after 3 days of my being as polite and patient as I could possibly be.
My conclusion: I don't care how educated a creationist is, they're all retards. They are all scum and a total waste of time.
Posted by: Nils Ross | November 24, 2009 8:33 AM
What's the old saw? You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into?
Posted by: TheDawgLives | November 24, 2009 9:06 AM
My personal favorite is that the world is carried on the back of a turtle.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 9:18 AM
Shorter creationists: "Dr. Myers was so MEEN! It's not FAIR! Waaaaaaah!"
For all I know, PZ really was rude and derisive towards the ID side, but then, from what we've seen of the goddidit crowd, the mere existence of atheists feels like a personal attack to them. Besides; rudeness is not a logical fallacy. One may be rude and still be right.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 24, 2009 9:25 AM
May I humbly suggest we adopt the following convention:
Scientific Theories have a capital "T".
eg, The Theory of evolution is a different beast than my father's theory that the Red Sox are doomed next year.
It will help the creotards have an easier time understanding that scientific Theories have a formal meaning.
Posted by: Crystal Joyrider | November 24, 2009 9:26 AM
How do you explain why humans aren't allowed to kill/eat other humans? Shouldn't that be fine since we are no more than glorified monkeys?
I... um, I don't think monkeys actually eat each other. Granted, that's about #50 on the List of Batshit Crazy Things in That Statement, but yeah.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 9:31 AM
While I understand that, it reminds me too much of the creationists using Truth and truth.
Posted by: Pete | November 24, 2009 9:44 AM
There's no shame in being beaten by the best.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
November 24, 2009 9:47 AM
Well it's plenty obvious that there are still plenty of people that claim to be open-minded except when it comes to challenges to their pet myth book. What I love in the negative comments is how many times the claim that nobody gave any source material. What, was PZ supposed to break out a complete, formatted APA biblio projected onto the wall?
I also note all the claims about PZ not showing "evidence". Creobots use the term "evidence" only to hand wave and distract. They think that by saying the word they are elevating their level of involvement in the discussion, and getting one over on any other ignorant people. They seem to enjoy locking themselves in the closet with this word.
Posted by: Donovan | November 24, 2009 9:50 AM
100% verified? This guy doesn't think yesterday happened because nobody can tell him how many bites it took to finish breakfast. Arg! Evolution is true because there is not the tiniest fraction of evidence against it.
Posted by: Simon | November 24, 2009 10:05 AM
"What I mainly take home from these data is the simple fact that, even though this debate was a complete and embarrassing rout for the evolutionists, their minds were not changed at all. Debates with evolutionists are a waste of time."
See how easy that was? Your argument is weak, and comes across as an infantile tantrum. If these debates are a waste of time, don't do them. If creationists cannot be converted, don't try any more, just keep your mouth shut.
But that won't happen, will it? Which I'm glad of, you can be an entertaining voice for reason quite often, but throwing your toys out of the pram because you couldn't convince people just sounds fucking petulant.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 24, 2009 10:45 AM
Someone hasn't been paying attention.Newborns aren't innocent. They're steeped in Original Sin until they're baptised.
Ergo, it's all hunky-dory to feast on babies as long as the vicar hasn't had a chance to duck them.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 24, 2009 10:49 AM
There are many languages where that doesn't work.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 24, 2009 10:53 AM
#111
'If creationists cannot be converted, don't try any more, just keep your mouth shut.'
Dyed in the wool creationists are not the battle ground, never have been!
It is the undecided who are the targets for both side of the argument, what there is of it!
Creationist are out to impress folks with simple language and a naive approach that they hope will be understood even misunderstood they care not which... just as long as it captures a victim at a basic level.
Rational squads are aiming for the same audience to try and convince them that the evidence although complicated is important and extremely persuasive for Evolution and the attendant Theory.
Neither side is trying to convert the committed, but the swing voters, that is where the sweet meat is!
On certain websites the hair and fur flies b'twixt 'n' b'tween Creationist and Evolutionist.
Not to convert one and other but to provide a shop window for the lurkers that might...or might not... be looking for a product and therefore are interested in the pro's and con's of what debate there might be to work out their own thoughts.
I think it is for the unseen and unheard these debates and internet spats are directed at.
As such they are very important.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 24, 2009 11:27 AM
I bet some of them were atheists at the beginning, too, and now believe in God.
Yes, it's standard fare with them, the conversion story.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: celerity | November 24, 2009 11:32 AM
PZ, will the debate be available online?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 24, 2009 11:47 AM
IMO this is a huge point, one I've experienced personally over the years. Dishonesty is one of their most effective tools used to protect their feeble intellectual positions.
An honest debate can only happen when each party is willing to change their viewpoint if compelling reasons/evidence are produced. No such compelling evidence exists for creationists. No amount of reasoned logic or empirical data will get them to admit they have a weak argument, and they'll admit this outright. So why debate?
Posted by: nicole. | November 24, 2009 11:48 AM
Atheists do not want to accept that God is real. I'll pray for them
This is my favorite. What does a debate of ID vs. Evolution have to do with being an Atheist? Some people are ridiculous.
Posted by: middlekk | November 24, 2009 11:55 AM
@101.
Bob: It is my experience that a creationist who claims to have 10,000 books in his library is lying by a factor of perhaps 9,999.
Lying for Jesus: A Christian tradition since the year 1.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 12:08 PM
Atheists do not want to accept that God is real. I'll pray for them
Yet an other theist who misunderstands what an atheist is. An atheist is not denying that god is real. An atheist is saying that there no evidence for god. Can you see the difference?
Please. do not pray for me, I do not need it nor desire it. Spend your time you would spend praying for me and try to understand what I just said. It is a better use of your time.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 12:19 PM
Well, then show us some conclusive physical evidence that your imaginary deity exists. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Until then, parsimony says the simplest explanation, which is your deity doesn't exist, holds.Since this is the equivalent of giving an atheist a middle finger salute, I'll use the golden rule to justify saying to you, fuck you.It has nothing to do with being an atheist, and everything to do with being scientific versus non-scientific. There is no science in ID. It is a religious idea attempting to be scientific. It fails one basic test. There is not a constant stream of papers backing ID going into the peer reviewed scientific literature. So, if ID is to be taught in school, an appropriate place would classes in comparative religion, mythology, or philosophy. But not in science class, except as an example of junk science.Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 24, 2009 12:41 PM
Guys, nicole @118 was quoting a line from the red ones pasted in PZ's post. She's pointing and laughing at the "I'll pray for them" comment, not agreeing with it.
(Hint to nicole: in the future, use blockquote tags or italics to show you're quoting something, so as to prevent confusion.)
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 24, 2009 1:13 PM
Alyson @ 122
I got that - but only after reading the rest of her post. I do understand why she cited that remark. It's quite an annoying perspective of the religionists. It's a sleight of hand that I'm not sure they even recognize they are doing.
To those asserting:
Why should anyone think deities exist? How can such a claim of existence be seriously considered?
Posted by: jj | November 24, 2009 1:25 PM
@Jannie #120
OK I know this has been dealt with before, and I may be opening a can of worms I shouldn't, but isn't that the definition of agnostic and not athiest?
Posted by: jolly | November 24, 2009 1:32 PM
I am torn on the question of whether these 'debates' do any good. However, I was raised Catholic and they taught me there probably isn't a god by being such hypocrites. I became a real skeptic from years of listening to the Dr. Dean Edell radio show whenever I could over the years. So from my view,experiencing their foolishness first hand is useful and it may take many years to sink in.
Posted by: Qwerty | November 24, 2009 1:33 PM
From a pro-ID comment:
"Not one document was cited from either source."
I was there. Were these people listening? I distinctly remember PZ Myers talking about a paper about mitochrondial something or other in which he cited the author and the gist of the study.
Perhaps a current school board member from Dover, PA would have been a better choice to take the "no" side as they could have explained their painful experience with teaching it.
Posted by: nicole. | November 24, 2009 2:30 PM
@120, 122
I am an atheist and I was simply saying that I thought the quote about praying for the atheists was ridiculous because it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate and it is the kind of things christians always seem to do. If you keep reading my comment it is kind of obvious that I was making fun of it not agreeing with it because I said that these people (ie the person who made the debate comment) are ridiculous. ps thanks 122 for backing me up.
Posted by: Alexis | November 24, 2009 2:35 PM
Why debate creationists?
I had a friend, Ed, who had been a submariner. He told me a story about his captain. It seems that the captain would spend every minute of shore leave enjoying certain beverages that play havoc with the liver, the head and the digestive system. When he got back to the boat, he would down some Alka-Seltzer then vomit it back up. Another Alka-Seltzer and another heave and repeat again. Ed asked "Cappy, why do you keep taking it if you just throw it back up again?" Cappy replied "Everytime, a little bit stays down."
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 2:36 PM
Nicole, I am sorry.
It is not an excuse but please use some way of quoting so that one can tell what are your words.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 2:40 PM
Nicole, my apologies too. If you use Firefox, get the TextFormattingToolbar addon, and you can use italics, blockquotes, and other ways of showing you are citing someone else.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
November 24, 2009 2:59 PM
"I distinctly remember PZ Myers talking about a paper about mitochrondial something or other in which he cited the author and the gist of the study..."
I didn't have to be there to figure that PZ more than likely made such verbal citations. I'm sure the person who gave that excuse either wasn't paying attention, or simply didn't care and had no compunction about muddying the issue by treating everyone equally.
Posted by: David Estlund | November 24, 2009 3:08 PM
Gingerbaker: What, like capitalizing "God" when it's the One True God but not any of those other gods?
Sili: Before they're baptized? No, thank you! I prefer them blessed and cleansed and holy. Christian babies are just more "sacrelicious."
"Paul Myers said evolution was "fact;" it's a theory, therefore it's not a principle which is proven... If evolution is a fact, how can it be taught (as such)? Where's the evidence that he kept talking about?" Oh dear. It's all gone pear-shaped. You mean we've based a century-plus of biology on somebody's untested guesswork? How can you people still accept evolution after learning this?! I'm getting the pitchfork & torches. [I wonder if any of the responses were POES]
Posted by: Bill Snedden | November 24, 2009 3:27 PM
"Hitler? Really?"
I think that was my comment...at least, I know that I wrote it in my notes when Bergman spewed that nonsense.
What I found most interesting is that the pre-debate "pro-creation" commentators seem to have attended a completely different event. Several of their comments are simply wrong. Not in subjective interpretation (though I think some of those are wrong as well), but in the FACTS.
For example, "No data or works cited" and "No documents cited" is simply untrue. Both participants referenced numerous documents and studies.
Here's another: "Myers talked about evidence (but) never gave it to back it up. (He) was RUDE! Just plain bashing Christians." How absurd. Of course PZ cited evidence (either argument or accounts of actual experiments/documents) to back up his statements. And while "rude" is certainly an opinion, "bashing Christians" is a patently false claim. In fact, I don't think PZ even mentioned Christianity. At any rate, he certainly didn't expend any time or effort "bashing Christians".
There also seem to be a plethora of claims of rudeness, name-calling, "ad-hominems" (which in the vernacular probably means "name calling"), disrespect, sarcasm, & condescension. While PZ was occasionally sarcastic (to great effect!), I would not describe any of his behavior as rude and I don't think he was at all disrespectful of Dr. Bergman (though certainly disrespectful of his ideas). I also didn't get the feeling that he was being at all condescending, but perhaps when one is attempting to explain FOR THE GAZILLIONTH TIME the science that is evolutionary theory to those who clearly don't understand or want to understand it, the patient & redundant manner necessitated by one's audience may provoke that sort of a reaction.
ID proponent: "How can evolution explain X?"
Scientist: *sigh* "As I've explained before, ABC"
ID proponent: "There's no need to be condescending! Now, what about HITLER!?!"
Posted by: Qwerty | November 24, 2009 3:40 PM
I remember sitting at this debate and wondering who was going to total the questionnaires. As both Christian and creationist groups (Christian Student Fellowship and TC Creation Science Association) and a skeptic/atheist group (CASH) sponsored the event, the only thing (I thought) that the tabulation would show is which group was better at getting out a crowd.
I sat on the Bergman side next to several pro-creation or pro-ID people and I still remember the reaction when PZ said that morals are culturally driven. Lots of shaking heads.
I thought Bergman was more disrespectful of the two with his constant fiddling with his ineffective slide presentation while PZ was talking.
Yes, the debate was rather worthless when you realize that Bergman didn't even address the topic which was "should intelligent design be taught in the schools."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 24, 2009 4:03 PM
Look for Soylent Green™ on your grocery shelves today.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 24, 2009 5:20 PM
Eeeew! With a gammey leg?
Posted by: Ermine | November 24, 2009 8:22 PM
JJ@ #124
This is one that a lot of people don't understand. Many times I've heard a religious person INSIST that 'Atheists claim a certain knowledge that there is no god! See? They're just as dogmatic and religious as we are!'
It's cute, but it's wrong. Gnosticism (And conversely, Agnosticism) is about knowledge. Do we, CAN we -know- that any god(s) exist?
Theism (and conversely, Atheism) is about belief. Do I personally -believe- that a God exists?
It is possible to be an agnostic theist, ('I don't think it's possible to KNOW that God exists or not, but I believe He/She/It does.'), or a gnostic atheist, (I believe it IS possible to know whether or not God exists, and I don't believe it does.), or either of the other two combinations as well, gnostic theism and agnostic atheism.
You don't have to make any claim as to whether or not god(s) exist to be able to say 'I see no positive evidence and a good deal of negative. I don't see any reason to believe in any sort of Supreme Being until someone shows me something conclusive.' - And that's Atheism. That's all it takes, there's no need to deny that god(s) could *possibly* exist, or even to claim that any particular god doesn't, only that you don't believe that any do.
Does that clear it up any?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
November 24, 2009 8:48 PM
Kubush said:
LOL. Where is Mike when you need him?Right here, doing my best not to be used.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 24, 2009 10:44 PM
No, like a Law of physics.
http://www.sciencestew.com/display2.php?articleID=0002