I see. So, positing questions that conflict with the prevailing dogma in a forum where participation and reply are entirely voluntary is "unnecessarily making life difficult for everyone." Interesting twist on free speech there.Thinking Aloud wrote:Yes. If I recall correctly, he has said that he enjoys debating from positions he doesn't necessarily hold himself. I suspect that's why other forums have lost patience with his style, because they feel he's unnecessarily making life difficult for everyone.Clinton Huxley wrote:This is like a selection box of creationist canards. It has to be a joke. Has Seth not previously stated he will argue positions he doesn't actually believe in?
And yet the OP explicitly asks for advice on answering questions from a creationist. How can one rationally answer such questions, or rebut the errors in reasoning of Creationists if one cannot even explain the fundamentals of evolution in response to common claims and questions of the uninformed?Rational thinkers are usually content to hold evolution to be true, based on accepting the prevalent views of science,
however my guess is that Seth likes to prod at the cracks of an individual's personal knowledge of the subject they hold true to point out that they don't, in fact, know everything there is to know about it.
Or even the things they ought to know if they are to engage the debate with Creationists in an effective manner that doesn't damage their own credibility through either ignorance or arrogance.
His replies in this thread suggest as much, when someone decides to pull out of the debate, and he chides them for not being prepared to answer simple questions.
Indeed. If you can't answer such simple questions, you probably shouldn't hold yourself out as competent to speak on the subject of evolution.
In places like Rationalia or Ratskep, most of us are content to accept evolution as fact, because we're content that people who have studied it in much more depth than ourselves are content to accept it as fact, and that a good number of people who've studied it in depth agree with each other (the scientific method, peer review, etc). Seth's challenges seem to be his way of suggesting that we're almost taking it "on faith" from these learned types.
More importantly, since when is expanding one's knowledge as a function of vigorous debate a bad thing? Isn't that the purpose of discussion fora, to explore subjects in a rational and thoughtful manner and learn something new from both the interchange and one's own research? I know I've learned a tremendous amount from such debates. For example, my knowledge of embryology is far ahead of what it was before I began defending a particular position on abortion. I think that knowledge is extremely valuable. Do you not agree?
Of course, expecting your average atheist-on-the-street to be able to answer everything on evolution is absurd, as it's such an enormous topic, as is anything in science.
Which is no reason to shrink from a basic discussion of the common canards of Creationism, now is it? You present a strawman argument when you imply that I'm demanding that everyone know "everything" about evolution. I don't. But I would expect those who choose to chime in on the subject to have a basic understanding of it, and in particular to be able to rationally refute the most common and simple canards of Creationism. Otherwise, its probably best if those who don't have even a basic understanding or any rhetorical ability to keep their yaps shut, so they don't embarrass themselves and their fellow evolutionists.
Indeed. And the tenets of most major religions have been under close examination, discussion and debate for literally thousands of years, with entire classes of scholars specializing in such debates, like the Jesuits. One might usefully take a page from the Jesuits when it comes to being familiar with the tenets of one's own philosophy.On the other hand, the tenets of an average religion can usually be condensed into one book, so the field is stacked against Reason from the get go.
Thanks. Good to find someone who actually gets it.Edit: For the record, I quite enjoy the challenges Seth posts, as they can be thought-provoking. It might get a bit tedious if every thread ended up a devil's advocate debate though!
. And then when they come back, they can 