Debate with a creationist help

[Arete]

 

That would be a bit surprising as it pretty much alludes to the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium as a null. My guess is that a default fallback would be to say that microevolution occurs but not macroevolution, while conveniently forgetting that mechanistically there are no differences.

 

 

But I've never seem an ostrich turn into a fruit fly, so evolution is wrong

 

On serious note, I'm weary of any STEM educator who doesn't accept evolution as fact - I mean, for e.g. if I didn't believe in magnets, it wouldn't really affect my teaching biology, but it does show a pretty big gap in in one's ability to apply critical thinking.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Arete

[CharonY]

 

 

But I've never seem an ostrich turn into a fruit fly, so evolution is wrong

 

On serious note, I'm weary of any STEM educator who doesn't accept evolution as fact - I mean, for e.g. if I didn't believe in magnets, it wouldn't really affect my teaching biology, but it does show a pretty big gap in in one's ability to apply critical thinking.

 

I agree, it is worrisome. At minimum it shows serious gaps in reasoning and one would have to wonder whether it indicate to a general tendency of ignoring inconvenient facts.

 

While I know quite a few religious scientists, they generally are believers in a spiritual sense. I.e. there is no evolution denial. It is rather bizarre, really, considering that even the Catholic church has come out to state that there is no denying evolution.

[Velocity_Boy]

Hey all

 

So I was in one of my classes for my electrical engineering degree and I was talking with another student about creationism in the classroom. He had another veiw on it then me but we had a good discussion about why we thought different. During this the professor burst into the conversation and says he knows evolution is wrong because god tells him it is. In heingsight I dont think I should have let the conversation shift from one one education to one of religion but unfortunately I did and I dont think I did a very good job of defending science. The majority of the class made sure to let me know afterwards they were no monkeys and repeatedly offered me a banana.(not the best day of my college career) I attached the link to the last few mins of the debate. I hadn't thought to record it until several mins in. I was hoping some of yall may listen to it and give me some advice on how I could have done better. I don't know if it's directly related to our new president or not but it seems i'm ending up in positions tring to defend science more lately. Just last week I had a student argue with mw stating global warming was a lie of the government after they peer-reviewed my english paper on climate change.

 

Thank you

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRdWjbaJgps&feature=youtu.be

 

Wow. Your story is difficult to believe, for me, on a couple of levels. One, that a college educator didn't know better than to jump into a private convo between students with an unbidden claim of creationism and of God. It has been my experience during five years of college that the vast majority of instructors are reticent to offer opinions on this issue....Even when asked to do so. And even in a philosophy or other sort of humanities class. I cannot imagine a STEM teacher doing this. And to make a claim that God speaks to him? May I enquire as to your college?

 

I had a proffessor in a Comp Religions class who would only grudgingly offer his own opinions on God. And that is after being asked several times. Most instructors are under strict orders to avoid offering opinions on matters like God and politics. Or other hot button issues.

 

And the majority of your classmates were creationist? In an EE class?

 

LOL...Was this a Bible college?

Edited March 30, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[CharonY]

Most instructors are under strict orders to avoid offering opinions on matters like God and politics. Or other hot button issues.

 

 

 

Uh, under whose orders would they be?

[rescue341]

Thank y'all for the replies. I'm on mobile so I'm not able to look at everyone's usernames across the to pages so I can't directly reply.

 

To the poster who took offense to the image on the video I'm very sorry. I didn't mean to offended I had to put a image other the audio to post it and I was not to please with religious folks at the time so that is the one I chose. My personal opinions of religion is it is the ultimate form of narcissism and intelucal death. while those are my opinions. I want to make it clear I have no issue with anyone believing in a religion. And I believe you should Beable to express your religion or for that matter any view. Regardless of what I think of it. But understand freedom of expression is not freedom from confirmation. I believe strongly in the quote by David cribbin "freedom of speech is not only the right to say as you please it is also the right to have what you say contested, and where does not accord with reason refuted, or with sense ridiculed" while it troubles me that a stem professor is allowed to teach when they openly deny science I do not have a problem with him haven't a religion. But if he brings his nonsense up and try's to pass it as science or fact then I have a problem and I believe wholely that in that situation if you claim yourself a person of reason or science then you have a duty to act

 

To the commenters who posted about the MRSA and flu shot I love those ideals I will keep them in my memory. I have asbergers I've learned to coup well in day to day social settings and I consider my self pretty knowledgable on a wide range of scientific areas but when it comes to on the fly communicating. It gets very hard for me to form what I know in to words . So it's a huge help to kind of have rebutles pre-loaded in my mind so thank you

 

To the commenter asked where I go to college I'm not going to put that Info out there. I will say I go to a very small rural community college. I understand where your comeing from when I took my EMT at another college further up north it was written policy that teachers did not discuss this stuff. Unforantly my current college is a whole different world. my largest class here is 5 students, most students and instructors are ultra consertive due to the coal industry here. And just as many are religious. the student government association and the bible club here are one in the same. When you add ultra consertive and highly regligous with the small sample size it's not hard to believe.

[Sensei]

Teacher who is truly honestly rejecting evolution shouldn't be teaching anybody anything..

[Argent]

Teacher who is truly honestly rejecting evolution shouldn't be teaching anybody anything..

Remedial basket weaving and Latvian embroidery in the 13th century should be OK, I think.

[Ten oz]

Of late, inspired by propaganda most obvious in England and the U.S., many have begun denying any and everything as a legitimate source of information. As a result all debate now seems to start within a single mutal point of agreement. It makes honest debate very difficult. In the case of debating evolution it is almost impossible. One can state the science but if science in general as a discipline is rejected as a source of information there is no debate that can be had.

 

Prior to entering a debate I recommend first determining what the people you are talking to believe and what their sources of information are. Then explain what your sources of information are. If they reject your sources of information that that is what I recommend focusing dabte on. No point in arguing biology with someone who believe all science is corrupt nonsense. Once, if, a ground work can be laid for what is considered accurate (types of studies, specific authors, fields of research, etc) then you can start to build your case. Otherwise I don't feel debate is useful. In the case of those who reject known science there really isn't anything to debate anyways. They either are willing to learn or they are not.

[CharonY]

Remedial basket weaving and Latvian embroidery in the 13th century should be OK, I think.

 

Actually, one of the very few evolution skeptics in science that I have met is a mathematician/cosmologist. He is doing phenomenally well and his classes are much liked by students, from what I hear. He really should not touch anything biological with a 10 ft pole, though.

[Sensei]

Actually, one of the very few evolution skeptics in science that I have met is a mathematician/cosmologist. He is doing phenomenally well and his classes are much liked by students, from what I hear. He really should not touch anything biological with a 10 ft pole, though.

 

Ask him whether he knows Miller–Urey experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

and similar equivalents making DNA/RNA nucleobases instead..

Edited April 1, 2017 by Sensei

[Velocity_Boy]

Uh, under whose orders would they be?

Uh, by the department chairs and other supervisorial admin. How can you not know this?

[Arete]

Uh, by the department chairs and other supervisorial admin. How can you not know this?

 

I'm a professor at a state university. I've never been told anything like this, and neither has anyone I've met in academia. In fact the tenure system exists primarily to protect academic integrity from administrative censorship.

[CharonY]

 

I'm a professor at a state university. I've never been told anything like this, and neither has anyone I've met in academia. In fact the tenure system exists primarily to protect academic integrity from administrative censorship.

 

Precisely. I would be shocked if admin started to telling me not to talk about certain topics. In the few cases when that happens, it does not go well- for admin.

[Velocity_Boy]

I'm a professor at a state university. I've never been told anything like this, and neither has anyone I've met in academia. In fact the tenure system exists primarily to protect academic integrity from administrative censorship.

 

You're claiming that faculty is never cautioned about offering unbidden personal opinions on controversial topic like God v Creation? And you've never heard of a professor getting called on the carpet after a student files a formal complaint regarding something he said?

[Arete]

You're claiming that faculty is never cautioned about offering unbidden personal opinions on controversial topic like God v Creation? And you've never heard of a professor getting called on the carpet after a student files a formal complaint regarding something he said?

 

I did not claim either has never happened - but no, I've never experienced either of those occurrences and I've not heard of either occurring. I also teach evolution at both the graduate and undergraduate level.

[CharonY]

You're claiming that faculty is never cautioned about offering unbidden personal opinions on controversial topic like God v Creation? And you've never heard of a professor getting called on the carpet after a student files a formal complaint regarding something he said?

 

If at all the opposite. There have been discussion on how to deal with disruptive creationist students, for example. But no at best some may suggest not to put too much of you out there, but these suggestions are mostly given by senior faculty and purely to ensure that classes do not get disrupted too much. But no, otherwise they do not really have authority to limit ones opinion in either way. More importantly, especially when there is no personal relationship, admin is usually careful not to give the impression that they want to limit faculty's freedom of expression and teaching. Most get rather uppity if there is even a suggestion of that happening.

 

The only reason really when a discussion is warranted is if one starts abusing or discriminate students. E.g. saying that one believes in god is fine, but believing that certain students are stupid because e.g. of their skin colour is not. The latter would be considered an abuse of authority and a case of misconduct. The former is actually explicitly protected in most code of conduct policies.

[Velocity_Boy]

Well when you can show me the millions and billions of fossils slowly evolving into human form, I'll believe you.

As for taking 3 fossils, and saying their jawbones look the same so they must have evolved from each other is in my opinion(note I said opinion. As I said, just let it go. Neither of us arguing is going to do anything. So don't hijack the thread.) less believable then saying they are 3 different species and God made them.

We believe what we want to believe. I choose to believe in God you choose to believe otherwise.

I don't want to argue about that, and arguing about that would be getting off topic.

So lets agree to disagree and move on before we start a discussion.

 

I was more referring to them being hard headed stubborn cave men rather then it being hard to argue scientifically.

 

"This research provided from this completely reliable, and when I say reliable I mean the most reliable, we have the best reliable sources out there, researched by the best scientists, and we have the best scientists, absolutely THE BEST, say that evolution is impossible. And they are right. And I mean the rightest, there is no one more right then them. Except me of course."

Try arguing against that.

Anything you say is just countered with.

"No, you see, that's where your wrong because that's where it no longer lines up with exactly what I want to believe."

 

Do you see what I meant now?

 

 

And seriously? -3 rep points?

For what? What did I do wrong there?

 

Although I disagree with much of what you claim, especially and most ardently on your anti Evolution claims....I'm a Biologist...I thought I'd drop a quick line and advise you not to let those negative rep points bother you.

 

When I first came to these forms, I figured that this being a science site, it would be fairly free of capricious and groundless pettiness. Like downvoting only because they disagree with your post, or even don't like the way you efficiently shot down their argument. I figured, naively, that dowvotes were reserved for troll posts, and for those who broke forum debate protocol.

 

This is of course not the case. I've received downvotes for perfectly objective and sourced posts that just happened to disagree with the thread authors opinion! Like once when I simply offered my own personal opinion on why time travel is impossible. LOL. Or when I posted that it was possible we humans might not have complete and total knowledge of every possible element in the entire Universe!

 

So, yeah, lots of egos here. Lots of pedantry, and a slew of juvenile politics. Not much better than you'll find over on, say, Yahoo Answers.

 

So don't sweat it. Those downvotes mean nothing. Churchill once said that it's a great thing to have upset folks and made enemies during your life, as it means that you've stood for something.

 

I still disagree with your Creationism, though! LOL

 

Cheers.

One of those was from me. This is a science forum, but your post showed such a lack of logic and was such a poor response to the OP that I didn't think it belonged here. You seem unable to separate the issue of existence of a god with the issue of creationism. Not all Christians are insane enough to think the world was created just a few thousand years ago. And if a professor teaching engineering thinks that is the case, in direct conflict with masses of scientific evidence to the contrary, then there is something wrong.

Hey Doc. Yeah, I voiced the same opinion in a previous post. About my incredulity if a college Engineering professor giving a student an unbidden rant supporting Creationism. I even went so far as to ask Raider if he was attending a Bible College. I don't think he ever answered me.

 

But yeah, I will not go do far as to question the accuracy of the young man's account here, but man, I have a whole lotta trouble believing the actions of the teacher. I was also maligned for claiming that faculty is usually cautioned not to offer unbidden opinions on controversial issues that can generate hostility among students who disagree.

 

So...Thanks.

[DrP]

Downvoting a post isn't out of pettiness. it is so that young people and visitors to the site that might not really know much about science know that the general belief of the scientists on this site do not support your claims. If you are stating something as a fact that goes against tested theories the neg rep can give an indication to others that you might not actually know what you are talking about with respect to a particular subject and that what you have said should be taken with a pinch of sodium chloride.

 

Would you have people eager to learn real things about science be fooled by someone putting forward a flat earth argument or a claim for a bogus perpetual motion machine? The red rep is there to let people know that we think the arguments are fatally flawed and that the person just isn't listening to respected experts in the field. I sometimes use it to express my disgust at rudeness and wilful ignorance too and I know others do the same.

[Ten oz]

Ideally down votes should push one to take a second look at what they posted. I have had down votes and gone back and looked and realized my errors. I have also had some I felt weren't deserved but honestly more times than not those got corrected by other posters. Either way lashing out isn't the correct response. Learning what specific it was about the post which bothered someone can be useful whether one actually changes their opinion or not.

[Raider5678]

Although I disagree with much of what you claim, especially and most ardently on your anti Evolution claims....I'm a Biologist...I thought I'd drop a quick line and advise you not to let those negative rep points bother you.

 

When I first came to these forms, I figured that this being a science site, it would be fairly free of capricious and groundless pettiness. Like downvoting only because they disagree with your post, or even don't like the way you efficiently shot down their argument. I figured, naively, that dowvotes were reserved for troll posts, and for those who broke forum debate protocol.

 

This is of course not the case. I've received downvotes for perfectly objective and sourced posts that just happened to disagree with the thread authors opinion! Like once when I simply offered my own personal opinion on why time travel is impossible. LOL. Or when I posted that it was possible we humans might not have complete and total knowledge of every possible element in the entire Universe!

 

So, yeah, lots of egos here. Lots of pedantry, and a slew of juvenile politics. Not much better than you'll find over on, say, Yahoo Answers.

 

So don't sweat it. Those downvotes mean nothing. Churchill once said that it's a great thing to have upset folks and made enemies during your life, as it means that you've stood for something.

 

I still disagree with your Creationism, though! LOL

 

Cheers.

 

Hey Doc. Yeah, I voiced the same opinion in a previous post. About my incredulity if a college Engineering professor giving a student an unbidden rant supporting Creationism. I even went so far as to ask Raider if he was attending a Bible College. I don't think he ever answered me.

 

But yeah, I will not go do far as to question the accuracy of the young man's account here, but man, I have a whole lotta trouble believing the actions of the teacher. I was also maligned for claiming that faculty is usually cautioned not to offer unbidden opinions on controversial issues that can generate hostility among students who disagree.

 

So...Thanks.

Eh, I was just trying to say arguing with a creationist is hard if they simply deny deny deny.

Guess they disagree. That's fine.

[Phi for All]

Eh, I was just trying to say arguing with a creationist is hard if they simply deny deny deny.

Guess they disagree. That's fine.

 

It's a disagreement if it's about opinions, but with facts it's denial.

 

When you claim there should be an unbroken chain of fossils showing the steps involved in speciation like a flipbook, it's an argument that seems to make sense until you know the fact that fossils are fairly rare, and we can't always dig where more might be. And when the fossils do show a clear connection, creationists claims it's an anomaly. When this argument is used, people who've studied archeology know the facts, they argue using these facts, and yet the creationist argument that the fossil record doesn't support "macro" evolution persists. That's denial.

[Velocity_Boy]

Also, ask the professor if he's willing to take last years flu vaccine instead of this years. If not, why not?(ignoring the obvious evasion of "oh, I don't get flu shots" which ignores the central point)[mp][/mp]No, not at all. You're hardly the first and (to my chagrin) won't be the last.

 

Just so you know, many Creationists are okay​ with the idea of evolution within a species. It's the whole microbe to fish to mammal to us deal that they refuse to consider. Thus, a fundie creationist is quite apt to accept the fact that microbes and viruses have evolved. They know about super bugs. I know this is how many of them are since I have several times used the black sooted moth as an argument for Selective inheritance. They were nonplussed and accepted it, just like Darwin's finches. Hey, those wackos have been doing this a long time, man. Perpetuating their mythos, so some of become quite adept at covering their bases. The last one I tried to debate with our museums filled with transitional fossils kept bringing up Piltdown Man, and so all those tran fossils were fakes!

 

Ya almost gotta hand it to them, eh?

 

LOL

Downvoting a post isn't out of pettiness. it is so that young people and visitors to the site that might not really know much about science know that the general belief of the scientists on this site do not support your claims. If you are stating something as a fact that goes against tested theories the neg rep can give an indication to others that you might not actually know what you are talking about with respect to a particular subject and that what you have said should be taken with a pinch of sodium chloride.

 

Would you have people eager to learn real things about science be fooled by someone putting forward a flat earth argument or a claim for a bogus perpetual motion machine? The red rep is there to let people know that we think the arguments are fatally flawed and that the person just isn't listening to respected experts in the field. I sometimes use it to express my disgust at rudeness and wilful ignorance too and I know others do the same.

Yet, as I said before, I've been downvoted for petty reasons such as using valid science to refute time travel. Or offering an opinion that I found something interesting that the downvoted did not. So your claim that such votes only get cast for bad science is, all due respect, simply not true. You need to be careful about defending all downvotes and claiming them valid and objective. It's not the case.

[CharonY]

Just so you know, many Creationists are okay​ with the idea of evolution within a species. It's the whole microbe to fish to mammal to us deal that they refuse to consider. Thus, a fundie creationist is quite apt to accept the fact that microbes and viruses have evolved. They know about super bugs. I know this is how many of them are since I have several times used the black sooted moth as an argument for Selective inheritance. They were nonplussed and accepted it, just like Darwin's finches. Hey, those wackos have been doing this a long time, man. Perpetuating their mythos, so some of become quite adept at covering their bases. The last one I tried to debate with our museums filled with transitional fossils kept bringing up Piltdown Man, and so all those tran fossils were fakes!

 

Ya almost gotta hand it to them, eh?

 

LOL

 

Of course this is an artificial distinction. Once two populations diverge sufficiently, they cannot reproduce. Or looking at asexually reproducing organisms the species line is even blurrier. Yet the second it goes to to something one can see without an microscope all the mechanisms should be different? That is a rather odd view, isn't it? Also, the interesting bit is that most major religions are fine with evolution, and only a rather specific subset holds on to creationism. Ultimately, the issue is not about evidence or mechanism. Rather, most of the time it is based on the belief that humans are, somehow, an exception to all other organisms. If someone came up with a mechanism which would explain in all species but humans, I am pretty sure a significant portion of creationists would be mostly fine with it.

 

That, however, implies a certain fundamental stance that would not allow persuasion by information. Of course, there are also creationists that are just ignorant of the issue, as they did not take the time to study the more complex aspects and review known information.

Edited April 6, 2017 by CharonY