"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"

[Mister Agenda]

I'm a scientist and a Christian. I believe in an ancient universe, extremely old earth and the evolution of life from simple to complex, with man being part of that evolution. I see a dynamic unfolding creation, a creative creation that has evolved, is evolving and will continue to evolve.

But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives. This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist). It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known. But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love. An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).

When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.

Believe me, the person who refuses to wrestle with pigs will wind up looking better than the person who invites them out for a tussle. The Ptolomists and Galenists were in no wise the Gish Gallopers (Duane Gish is a creationist who got a dishonest debating tactic named after him) who compose the ranks of creationist debators.

If debate was the goal, any articulate undergrad could take on the likes of Ham. They want guys like Nye and Dawkins because of the credibility it lends them. Not giving idiots credibility is a rational choice.

---

Whateverist. I think the good questions IDers ask are especially around what they call irreducible complexity; how did systems with complex mutual-dependency evolve? I think that's an area where evolutionary science is currently weakest (certainly in being able to produce good evidence rather than to propose possible solutions), though progress is being made on what may have been the precursors to, for example, the DNA/mRNA/tRNA/protein system (taking the most fundamental form of 'irreducible complexity'). Having people outside of science pointing to the weakest bits is, I think, actually useful: antagonists are often better at critical review; which is why Plato always developed his philosophy in a dialectic setting (developing his argument with Socrates arguing against his detractors).

Irreducible complexity is a claim that there ARE no possible natural solutions in the context of evolution. Showing one possible evolutionary path shows the example is NOT irreducibly complex. At that point, the refutation is complete.

---

Equilax. I wonder if we're talking across each other. What I am advocating is the engagement between different people. I'm not saying that ID doesn't have weaknesses, far from it. But I don't see that as a barrier to science and scientists engaging in a common market place of public discourse. Part of that can be, and should be, highlighting weaknesses in ID. It's the refusal to enter into the discourse that I was, and am, objecting to.

I know that sounds superficially reasonable, but the problem is that the other side in this case is composed of scoundrels who will take every unfair advantage that they can. They often 'win' formal debates, that is, are most persuasive to the audience, because it takes less time to lie than to explain why something isn't true.

---

Next time you here this guy by my example:

You challenge Anderson Silva to a fight but he says no. Does him saying no mean he is afraid to fight you? No it means you are not worth his time fighting.

Before you get to debate Dawkins and Nye, you should have to prove yourself by defeating their students!

---

Shall we campaign to teach evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools?

I certainly think it should be discussed in Sunday schools. And I'd like to see creationism, ID and evolution (and any other reasonably common world view) discussed, contrasted and compared in a broad 'philosophy' or 'general studies' class at school. Where commonly held magisteria overlap there should be discussion, IMNSHO.

Yes, because as a long time immigrant to South Carolinian I can tell you that teachers, at least in my state, can be completely trusted to teach a course like that objectively.