Should there even be a debate?

[LARA]

My view on evolution is that is it just an accepted logical truth.  Anytime you impose limits on a system; whether it be resources, mate choice or what have you; and place "players" in that system that can exchange information to make new unique "players" you will see a change in the nature of the "players" over time.  It can be demonstrated with computer models, and as far as empiricism goes we can see the evidence of this change in the strata of the earth, and the many varied forms of life on earth.  What remains to be elucidated is the nature of evolution,  the speed at which it can progress based on the nature of the species involved, and a myriad of other unknowns.  To me this is a question reserved for science and those who understand evolution, speciation and the nature of genetics, and the chromosomal alterations that occur to create new species.

For me, there is no debate on whether evolution exists or not.   People with a creationist viewpoint often bring into play information that doesn't disprove evolution, but instead shows the gaps in scientific knowledge in areas such as the definition of species, the simple fact that earth is not a very good record keeper and scientists only have a tiny fraction of fossil evidence of what was here on the planet to work from, and the very difficult mathematics involved in species dynamics, while forgetting that the species involved in evolution make choices and have, if you will, the intelligence to do so.

To me allowing this debate just continues to invite ridiculous nonsense into the public understanding of evolution.  It wastes the time of valuable scientific minds who should be centered on their work rather than fielding creationist crackpots and muddies the waters for people who are trying to grasp the nature of a very complex and dynamic problem.

So why even continue this?  We are going to see more of the same, over and over again.  People who because of some personal reason or emotional injury are clinging to a falsehood and attacking evolution because it challenges the cozy psychological world they've based their lives on.  They need effective psychological therapy, not attacks from science.

I realize that creationists will always attack evolution, and parents have had to fight them from placing intelligent design in the schools.  But Evolution won in Kansas and in Dover.  And it will continue to win out in other areas slowly over time.  Having the debate doesn't make this situation any better.  Having a place for a pointless debate only encourages more of the same trolling behavior, and it puzzles me that we would invite trolls to the forum with this subject and then ban them when they only do what is natural.

Scientists have traditionally taken the position that there is no debate and there will be no debate in the past.  I think this is a right position and we should return to it.  Let parents and the legal system do it's job of keeping religion out of the classroom, and scientists can be available to people with real legitimate questions and open to testifying in court cases where needed.  There is no scientific value in making a spectacle of the thing.

"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill.  To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill."  -Sun Tzu.

I would love to hear your opinions on this subject.

[Sophus]

There really shouldn't be a debate. Like most revolutionary scientific discoveries, the church is reluctant to accept it because it threatens their religion. Until they finally realize they have to reluctantly accept some logic in order to keep their members once it becomes well beyond obvious that science is right. Like the heliocentric theory, the church will eventually accept Darwin's theory of evolution once it becomes an axiom. They'll just come up with some excuse for why evolution is still compatible with their faith.

[Whitney]

Fixed:  The category now reads as the following:

Creationism/Intelligent Design
Since these topics do not belong in the science section, this is an area to discuss creationism and intelligent design.

With this wording it does not appear that we think the debate is a valid within the scientific community.

[Will]

It's never really a debate, to be honest. It's one side coming to the table without all of the information (and with plenty of half truths, full lies, and misconceptions), and the other side patiently trying to educate.

You're dead-on, evolution isn't debatable. Still, it's worth teaching. There's freedom in knowledge, and every person that actually learns something is being liberated. If we have to frame it like a debate in order for people to pay attention, I don't have a problem with it.

[MariaEvri]

for me, there is no debate. Evolution is a fact, and any "gaps" there are, we will surely find the answer in the future. So far the only ones that refuse evolution are religious nuts.
edit: I still think we should still allow such "debates" with religious people, just because I am also learning from those debates as well XD

[Squid]

I agree on your point but I see the utility of such in a slightly different manner, especially as it relates to the interwebs.  When I enter into a debate with a creationist, I go in understanding that I will most likely not change their mind - nothing I say will even make one neuron fire.  However, I sometimes produce long, information-filled posts - why do ya do it Squid?!  For Dio's sake, why?!

Okay, I'll tell ya.  It's mostly for me and others who are watching the debate go down.  The debate keeps the material fresh in my mind and may cause me to review newer research in several areas.  It also provides that information to others that may read it or stumble across it on the webs.  I actually was bored once a while back and found where someone on another website referenced a post I made on a messageboard (forget which one) in their debate and I've had others PM me and tell me that they've learned a lot from particular exchanges.

So it becomes less of me trying to make a creationist understand where they are wrong and more about me keeping up with the latest science and keeping me on my toes as well as hoping that information gets to someone who will use it and appreciate it.

That is why I debate creationists on teh internets.

[McQ]

I hate that there is a debate on this and wish there wasn't. However, if it hadn't been for a friend of mine (a professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh) who took the time (months of his time) to calmly and rationally work on me and explain things to me, I may have taken much longer to question my religious beliefs. He and I talked so much about ID/Creationism and other topics, that it became very easy for me to shed those moronic beliefs.

So I do think it is necessary to have people "debunking" ID, but really wish we didn't have to.

[brekfustuvluzerz]

i agree to that and more. i think religion is (obviously) holding us all back since we continue to let it fester in our society. i wish we could do away with it all together. sometimes i feel like im in ancient greece and every one i know accredits everything to a mythical god. the only difference being, that those same people in ancient greece had a far better understanding of the science of their day than the average person does today (seemingly). so in a sense, it is worse. i believe a "no tolerance" policy for religion should be adopted in all areas of our society, from politics, to academia. this tolerance of religious values is causing our schools to hold back on the teaching of evolution. if kids were taught about the details instead of just the general idea, i think they would stand a far better chance of holding up against the pressures of ancient superstition. for example, in school i was told that all life came from the sea. the more i thought about it, the harder it became to visualize this as a possibility, never mind a reality. it seemed ridiculous to believe if evolution created new species out of necessity, then why did the bodies of fish decide they needed lungs while still in the water?  it also seemed so improbable due to the amount of change that would have to happen simultaneously. a fish would have to be born with a working set of lungs, the proper eyes, legs, etc.. the list seemed to large to happen all at once, and with out one of these, the animal could not survive. then in order to pass the genes along, it would have to find a mate with the same improbable combination. to do this, there would have to be thousands of these improbabilities running around. all of this incorrect reasoning could have been avoided if i was taught more thoroughly the details of evolution, and how lungs werent grown out of thin air, but were there all along and simply took on a new function.

[karadan]

That is a great point, LARA.

Personally, if i found out that a religious person came to this forum with a certain world view and over time, after serious discussion, changed their view to a more rational stance because of you guys, then to me, that is a very good thing. If it means we have to debate the subject of evolution as if it isn't fully proven yet, then i don't mind that. We all know it is the provable truth. Having it as a debate might make the fundies think they have a point but they think that anyway. To them, we are as deluded as we know they are. But, if just one person were to change their mind and see the dross they've bought into just by actually reading what we type, then that would give me a nice warm glowy feeling inside. I'd certainly crack open a beer or two.

Because of this, i have no issue with the way it is currently worded but i also have no issue with the title it has now been changed to.

Besides, we have reason, logic and sanity on our side.

[oldschooldoc]

I agree. The debate has been over for a long time in my view. Now it is just a matter of shutting up these damn creationists who won't, well, shut up. They argue over the gaps in the fossil record. Well, have you ever heard of punctuated equilibrium? The amount of time a species spends in stasis, compared to the time during which speciation occurs, is huge. They expect there to be a complete fossil record if evolution is true. Well, guess what, the earth is not a great record keeper, deal with it.

[Kylyssa]

To me, debating about evolution is like debating about erosion, continental shift, eutrophication, or gravity.  However, it is important to keep supporting science by countering those who would tear it down and return to the dark ages.

[Kylyssa]

They expect there to be a complete fossil record if evolution is true. Well, guess what, the earth is not a great record keeper, deal with it.

Absolutely!  I've argued again and again that fossils are just rare accidents.  The percentage of living things that become fossilized is minuscule, the number of fossils that survive millions of years of environmental stresses is also minuscule, and the number of those that do which are found by human beings is smaller yet.

It's not like the earth is some museum of natural history wherein some curator carefully sampled and preserved specimens of every thing that ever lived.