science vs. religion debate

Its a fine line … by ignoring them, you can come off as "being afraid to debate them". Just look at the Tea Party and a lot of their their BS …

The Tea Party is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They are a fringe movement, even among Republicans and they are viewed negatively by a majority of Americans. But it was because CNN and FOX gave them so much coverage initially, they inflated the commonality of the position and gave a fringe movement credibility, and as a tiny minority they were able to push Republican politics further right than they have ever been, which has now cost the American economy Billions of dollars, the Tea-Party led shutdown alone cost the economy 24 Billion dollars. If CNN and FOX had presented the story truthfully, the truth being that a couple thousand people, who had just had their taxed LOWERED, were being organized by Freedom-works (a Koch Brothers funded political organization) and needlessly protesting against non-existent tax increases, there wouldn't have been a tea-party, period, and according to most economists the GLOBAL economy would be better off.

All one has to do is look at Republican positions before and after the Tea Party to see how much promoting fringe concepts can change the course of events, to the detriment of a nation. They supported stimulus spending during recessions (was accepted as fact pre-tea people that stimulus spending promoted economic growth), infrastructure spending, individually mandated health insurance reforms and exchanges (a Republican plan)… the list goes on and on.

Giving Air-time to fringe concepts, particularly those concepts devoid of attachment to facts (like the tea-people and Young Earth Creationists), promotes them, often to the detriment of political discourse and the advancement of knowledge.

By ignoring fringe movements like Young Earth Creationists, you're taking away their soapbox and megaphone, reducing their credibility and putting their fringe ideology back into the minority of churches and Creationist 'museums' where they belongs.

Ham's side of the debate could be summarized as so:

So, how many children might have watched this "debate", exactly?

lol at posting this to KenN, you should be quoting Farmer, he the one saying that it was a positive if some kid saw the debate.

The Tea Party is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They are a fringe movement, even among Republicans and they are viewed negatively by a majority of Americans. But it was because CNN and FOX gave them so much coverage initially, they inflated the commonality of the position and gave a fringe movement credibility, and as a tiny minority they were able to push Republican politics further right than they have ever been, which has now cost the American economy Billions of dollars, the Tea-Party led shutdown alone cost the economy 24 Billion dollars. If CNN and FOX had presented the story truthfully, the truth being that a couple thousand people, who had just had their taxed LOWERED, were being organized by Freedom-works (a Koch Brothers funded political organization) and needlessly protesting against non-existent tax increases, there wouldn't have been a tea-party, period, and according to most economists the GLOBAL economy would be better off.

All one has to do is look at Republican positions before and after the Tea Party to see how much promoting fringe concepts can change the course of events, to the detriment of a nation. They supported stimulus spending during recessions (was accepted as fact pre-tea people that stimulus spending promoted economic growth), infrastructure spending, individually mandated health insurance reforms and exchanges (a Republican plan)… the list goes on and on.

Giving Air-time to fringe concepts, particularly those concepts devoid of attachment to facts (like the tea-people and Young Earth Creationists), promotes them, often to the detriment of political discourse and the advancement of knowledge.

By ignoring fringe movements like Young Earth Creationists, you're taking away their soapbox and megaphone, reducing their credibility and putting their fringe ideology back into the minority of churches and Creationist 'museums' where they belongs.

Yes, but if I were to extend your logic NSMB would lock Farmer's account and only allow him one twitter length post each year….

Actually, that seems like a pretty rad idea.

I like this article - well-written. Oh, and it re-affirms my position, so … you know, confirmation bias!

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39118/title/Opinion--Confronting-Creationism/

1 Such debates confer unearned legitimacy on the creationist position. When a scientist debates a creationist about evolution, he or she is conveying the message that the creationist has a scientific case to make, even though creationists explicitly or implicitly prioritize scripture over science. Revealingly, creationists do not argue—nor even attempt to argue—for their views how scientists argue for their scientific positions.

2 Such debates tend to mislead the audience about the nature of scientific practice. Scientists argue with each other, sometimes fiercely, but they do not argue in the service of a religious ideology. Rather, they argue in the service of a common goal: ascertaining how the natural world works. And they do so in venues that reward the objective assessment of evidence rather than oratorical prowess, such as research publications and professional conferences.

3 Most debate formats allow the creationist participant to engage in the Gish gallop, so named for the late stalwart creationist debater Duane T. Gish, who was notorious for his breakneck recital of half-truths, out-of-context quotations, and quibbles, presented in such swift succession that the opposing scientist was oftens unable to track, let alone refute, every point. As a result, the audience is left with the misapprehension that the points left unrefuted by the scientific debater are valid.

4 Such debates are often presented, explicitly or implicitly, as debates over religion, with the creationist happily assuming the role of defender of faith, God, and the Bible, and the scientist cast, willingly or unwillingly, in the opposite role. Because evolution is accepted on the basis of the overwhelming evidence by scientists of all faiths and of none, it is inaccurate and unhelpful for it to be presented as distinctively and inextricably connected with any position on religion.

5 Such debates help to stimulate the base and swell the coffers of their creationist sponsors. What’s worse, they fuel local enthusiasm for creationism, contributing to pressure on local teachers to teach creationism or downplay evolution. A survey conducted in 2007 revealed the dismal fact that one in eight public high-school biology teachers in the United States already present creationism as scientifically credible, and that six in 10 already downplay evolution.

The creation account in Genesis is one chapter or so long. It is also not a scientific recording of the process. Simply said God made the stuff.

It only got one chapter, there must have been more important things God wanted to share.

I wouldn't let my faith get rattled by evolution.

Just wait until the NBR Dream Team competes.

imajin

I like this article - well-written. Oh, and it re-affirms my position, so … you know, confirmation bias!

"Such debates confer unearned legitimacy on the creationist position."

The legitimacy has already been conferred by support from high ranking public officials. I find that this argument against "debating" creationists completely ignores this fact and treats creationism like some obscure cult fantasy and not the pervasive popular belief system that it actually is (in the US). There has to be a tipping point where you confront ignorance and I think when creationists write legislation relating to climate change it is time to accept that simply ignoring them is not the best course of action.

"Such debates confer unearned legitimacy on the creationist position."

The legitimacy has already been conferred by support from high ranking public officials. I find that this argument against "debating" creationists completely ignores this fact and treats creationism like some obscure cult fantasy and not the pervasive popular belief system that it actually is (in the US). There has to be a tipping point where you confront ignorance and I think when creationists write legislation relating to climate change it is time to accept that simply ignoring them is not the best course of action.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/17/meet_the_press_pretends_marsha_blackburn_is_a_reasonable_person_with_reasonable_ideas_because_debate/

Creationism is hardly an obscure, fringe cult. 46% of Americans don't believe in evolution. Another 32% believe that evolution is guided by God. 15% believe in evolution with no metaphysical/supernatural basis. (The rest have no opinion).

So what exactly does science have to lose by debating the majority that denies the ideas that underpin the basis of all biological, heath, medical and genetic research and technology? Are scientists who watch the debates and suddenly come to Jesus?

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/17/meet_the_press_pretends_marsha_blackburn_is_a_reasonable_person_with_reasonable_ideas_because_debate/

Not sure if this is rebuttal or if you are agreeing with me??

This article makes the exact same mistake of underestimating the impact of these people and pretending that debating them opens the door for more people to listen to their nonsense.

"Perhaps realizing that Blackburn would never concede the point (and perhaps also realizing that giving Blackburn a platform to spew pseudoscience was an embarrassing joke), Gregory pivoted to the existential question at hand: What is to be done?"

She is a member of congress. She doesn't need a Meet the Press for a platform to spew pseudo-science, her job provides her with a far more powerful platform that actually gives her the ability to decide what is to be done. She has the clout to go on 100 of these shows and spout her ignorance with nobody countering her. I wish Bill Nye was at every one of them.

I'm pointing out a number of things;

The climate change "debate" suffers from the same media effect - that is, the "deniers" gain legitimacy by way of the media providing the venue for their brand of obfuscation.

That people in high places (legislators) are highly influenced by the wrong (morally and scientifically) side of the discussion.

That Bill Nye is, perhaps unsurprisingly, showing up and acting as a foil for this illegitimacy of thought.

I'm pointing out a number of things;

The climate change "debate" suffers from the same media effect - that is, the "deniers" gain legitimacy by way of the media providing the venue for their brand of obfuscation.

That people in high places (legislators) are highly influenced by the wrong (morally and scientifically) side of the discussion.

That Bill Nye is, perhaps unsurprisingly, showing up and acting as a foil for this illegitimacy of thought.

i agree with you in the sense of how the debate gets deliverd by the science side.
i agree with chup that nto makign the debate public only allows the ingnorance to continue unfettered.

if PCL (pro climate change) wants to change minds then it's a question of how to frame the discussion for the people that need to be convinced. pure science and trying to ram facts down people's throats will not win the debate; psychology and the art of persuasion will. that's why the "other side" holds so much popularity, they present their debate in a manner that is more appealing and believable to their audience even though the information is either flawed or outright incorrect. sometimes you need to let go of science if you want to win for science.