"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"

[Dolorian]

I see this claim made rather often by Creationists / ID proponents when it is said that neither of those views should be taught as science in schools. The reason they say this is because they believe that their views are banned because "evolutionists" are afraid of honest debate.

But are Creationists / ID proponents really interested in honest debate? From what i can see they are not (just look at the Nye vs Ham debate), creationists in particular engage in so much misrepresentation that one wonders if they actually do so deliberately and not simply due to ignorance of the facts. They also don't really have a scientific outlook but rather presuppose the truth of the bible and try to fit the evidence to their interpretation of it.

ID proponents on the other hands seem to just want to poke holes at evolution and it's mechanisms without providing a scientific solution of their own.

By the looks of it neither of them want to play by the rules of scientific inquiry and research and when asked why they don't publish their papers in respected scientific journals, they claim there is some kind of anti creationist / ID conspiracy going on.

If anything, I think what "evolutionists" are "afraid" of is the subverting and undermining of scientific education that would result by introducing these ideas into the classrooms.

Has a creationist / IDer ever asked you this question when you discuss evolution with them? In their mind what can possibly be the harm in teaching both sides or the so called "controversy"? It is all in the name of honest debate. So why not teach both sides? What are you afraid of "evolutionists"? :p

[Baqal]

The reason why evolutionists are denying debate requests from creationists is not because they're afraid from loosing, but because they're tired of hearing the same terrible arguments again and again, like, putting a straw man on evolution by confusing it with abiogenesis. Even if they somehow manage to disprove biological evolution, how are they going to convince any scientist to trust their "only true ultimate standard"?

[Minimalist]

What are you afraid of "evolutionists"?

Giving ignorance another stage on which to trot out its drivel.

[Anomalocaris]

Because evolutionists actually have real things, like science, to do.

[tjakey]

What are you afraid of "evolutionists"?

Giving ignorance another stage on which to trot out its drivel.

Best answer!

[Dolorian]

Giving ignorance another stage on which to trot out its drivel.

Good one

[Brakeman]

I see this claim made rather often by Creationists / ID proponents when it is said that neither of those views should be taught as science in schools. The reason they say this is because they believe that their views are banned because "evolutionists" are afraid of honest debate.

I would be thrilled with a chapter in my child's biology book where on one side Ken Ham says "goddiit" and on the other side Richard Dawkins said "God-didn't-do-it, evolution did and here's how evolution did it." Then I would demand that in religion classes we atheists get a alternate countering voice and in history classes we atheists get a countering voice. Religion doesn't fare well when countered by reason as most of the religious world is not comprised of reality deniers such as our god pushers on this forum. Most theists are only theists because they've never heard any alternative.

[Bad Wolf]

The reason 'evolutionists' don't debate creationists, is the same reason that geologists don't debate flat earthers.

[Foxaèr]

What are you afraid of "evolutionists"? :p

Debate is fine; students can join a debate class to discuss both sides of the issue. Creationism, however, should not be taught as fact in an educational environment.

What I am most afraid of is ignorant graduates who will one day vote and be in charge of this country under the misguided assumption that their beliefs are true and above reproach.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The reason why evolutionists are denying debate requests from creationists is not because they're afraid from loosing, but because they're tired of hearing the same terrible arguments again and again, like, putting a straw man on evolution by confusing it with abiogenesis. Even if they somehow manage to disprove biological evolution, how are they going to convince any scientist to trust their "only true ultimate standard"?

Actually, biologists (I really dislike the term 'evolutionist') tend not to want to debate creationists on stage, because of the very real fear of them (the biologists) losing the debate. The way formal debates are structured tends to favour idiocy over science.

Suppose the creationist steps up to the podium and makes the following statement: 'Evolution cannot be true because of the complexity of the human eye, the feeding habits of woodpeckers, and the hoax of the Piltdown Man. I yield the balance of my time.'

The moderator turns to the biologist and says, 'Your reply, please. Under the rules, you have five minutes.'

And THAT'S where the problem is. The non-issues raised by the creationists simply cannot be meaningfully answered in five minutes - it isn't possible. The creationist knows this - he's counting on it. All these science hating, ignorant cretins have to do is make some moronic, bald-faced assertions like those above, any one of which takes a lot longer than five minutes to answer, and he's certain sure to win the debate - they don't care about science, they care about the perception that the scientist droned on and on and never refuted the assertion in the time allotted.

What biologists would prefer to do is to have on-line debates with these knuckle-draggers, with remarks/responses limited by word count, not by time. Creationists run from THESE challenges like a timid virgin from an orgy, since they know they'll be skewered.

Boru