Heated debate on evolution with brother

[SteelCurtain]

Maybe not a suitable book, but his quotables are pretty solid.

The shelves of many evangelicals are full of books that point out the flaws in evolution, discuss it only as a theory, and almost imply that there's a conspiracy here to avoid the fact that evolution is actually flawed. All of those books, unfortunately, are based upon conclusions that no reasonable biologist would now accept.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

[pocaracas]

I still think the best approach is to dismantle the guy's smugness.

Little bro, just tell him something along the lines of "I once thought you had a great mind. But now I see only a parrot, an idiot, a buffoon, pigeon pretending to play chess. Good luck with your life, I don't want any part of that brain tumor."

[Cyberman]

Apologies if this has come up earlier, I just briefly skimmed the thread. The TalkOrigins 'Index to Creationist Claims' could be a useful resource.

[RoadRunner79]

It would seem that a number of people have noticed this.  I would also add the it appears that quite a few who practice medicine also fall into the same category.  Which has lead me to ask before, if those in applied sciences are more likely to deny evolution?

Yes you're right, as we've seen in the US presidential race, one can be a great surgeon and still be an evolution denying creationist. Maybe it's that these groups are very highly educated in a science related field (but often don't actually do science in the strictest sense). The engineer is entirely focused on analyzing design and will interpret things she sees in this frame of reference. A surgeon is confronted with the great complexity of life and has to work and struggle with it, and sees herself as an expert on how life works - not having gotten any in depth training on how such complexity can arise naturally, she might feel compelled to jump to creationist conclusions.

I would agree, that these groups are not doing scientific research in the same since as in other fields (and I would guess, that this is true for a great many, with a science education).  Although I would say that at least in my field of automation, that troubleshooting is going to follow a similar process.   But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss motives or biases of an entire group.   That argument could easily be turned around to go the other way.

For me personally, in my work, I often have to distinguish between causes of design or random forces acting on the system.   And in reality, we all do this all the time instinctively.

[Fake Messiah]

At that point I had to just withdraw. There was simply no getting through to him. He kept reiterating that he was open to the evidence, but that there is no evidence. The hostility he displayed was tremendous.

Any tips on good information sources to send him?

Oh the communication! It is the problem how to reach people that cling to these fairy tales from the Bible like creation or Noah and the ark. Sure lots of people mentioned that you give him a lecture on evolution or even give him a book on evolution and yes that is correct, but the psychology of these people is such that you can't just start talking about it. They built a defense around it. You have to have a timing.
First you need them to relax and know that you won't be a dick about it. Confront them with their beliefs, that they hear it out loud, like "So you believe a 600 year old man but two animals of all species in a giant box - mind you it was not a ship - and live with them for over a year?"
-"Yes."
"How do you gather he did this? How did he feed them? Where did he get the water for drinking?"
-"Well it rained for 40 days so they got the water."
"It rained for 40 days but they were in the giant wooden box for 370 days. Not to mention they had only one window."
etc.

One of the good steps in learning how to talk with people with such deep religious delusions is for you to read a book "Manual for Creating Atheists" by Peter Boghossian.

If you don't feel like reading you can watch people on youtube doing the street epistemology inspired by the book I mentioned. Here's Aron Ra having a crashcourse in it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZMzR2z6ENM

[snowtracks]

 Can't have cell nucleus developed without a cell membrane and cell wall (extremely complex has nine layers and has openings for exits and entrances which do not allow everything to enter) to protect the nucleus and the membrane/wall can't form without something inside. Can't have a brain without thought (by the way what was the first thought? must have been quite an event) and vice versa. The compound eye appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion. It came as a package deal. What good is a retina by itself? Or ocular muscles without a lens? Yet, according to Darwin it could not come as a package. If it did, it would violate the very criteria he established for his theory that living structures had to be capable of evolving in small incremental steps. No progression of eye designs from simple to complex has ever been produced in the natural or fossil world.

[Esquilax]

 Can't have cell nucleus developed without a cell membrane and cell wall (extremely complex has nine layers and has openings for exits and entrances which do not allow everything to enter) to protect the nucleus and the membrane/wall can't form without something inside. Can't have a brain without thought (by the way what was the first thought? must have been quite an event) and vice versa. The compound eye appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion. It came as a package deal. What good is a retina by itself? Or ocular muscles without a lens? Yet, according to Darwin it could not come as a package. If it did, it would violate the very criteria he established for his theory that living structures had to be capable of evolving in small incremental steps. No progression of eye designs from simple to complex has ever been produced in the natural or fossil world.

Just out of curiosity, did you do any research into this before you opened your mouth? Just kidding, I know you haven't: you could have had the answer to your eye questions within a ten second google search, for example. But then, intellectual indolence and unwarranted confidence are sort of your hallmarks, Snowy.

[robvalue]

Snow: All of that is completely wrong, and no one is claiming that's what happened. Not even Darwin. If you'd like to give us sources showing where such claims are made, please go ahead. Be careful not to use creationist sources that have quote mined people.

Words such as "suddenly" are relative; evolution happens over a massive timescale, so if something big happens over just a few hundred thousand years for example, that would be a sudden change. The Cambrian Explosion was a long period of time, it wasn't like a grenade going off.

[Minimalist]

Get him Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show On Earth."  It's pretty hard reading for a bible-thumper but it is more compelling than some shitty bible verse.

He'll quickly dismiss Dawkins as an untrustworthy liberal atheist.

Then you are dealing with an idiot and there is no hope for him.  Allow him to remain stupid and simply tell him off.

[Autumnlicious]

The way this guy brother was introduced didn't inspire confidence. Ain't no engineer I'd ever hire.