Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?

[Jose Fly]

One commonality among most of the creationists in this forum is they like to ask for data and evidence for the conclusions of evolutionary biology. If those of us on the science side say something about a specific fossil sequence, genetics, or even common descent as a whole, it’s not unusual for a creationist to respond with something like “Where’s the data”, “Show me the evidence”, or “Where’s the proof”.

The typical response is for several science advocates to provide links to the data, and write up explanations for how it supports the conclusion(s). Now, many of these explanations are extremely well done and thorough. But the problem is, they’re largely a waste of time. I’ll use a recent example to illustrate why…..

In the "Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism" thread, I posted a “question for creationists” from Kathleen Hunt about the horse fossil record. Basically she asked for creationists’ explanation for the fossil data, and wondered if they believe God created all the species independently, while destroying their very similar kin. Deeje responded to that post by asking to for the data behind the horse fossil sequence. Then, ImmortalFlame responded by posting a link to the horse fossil wiki page. And how did Deeje respond? Did she look it over and return with informed comments and questions? Of course not. She ignored it and immediately jumped topics and started ranting about the “Lucy” specimen.

But wait…..didn’t anyone wonder why she didn’t just look up the information herself? All she had to do was Google “horse fossil record” and she would have found all sorts of resources that walked through the topic and supporting data. If she wanted layperson type info, she could have started with the same wiki page ImmortalFlame gave her. Then if she wanted more info on specific specimens, she could have gone to the wiki pages for each specimen. And if she wanted the more detailed scientific coverage of each specimen, all she had to do was go to Google Scholar and search for each specimen’s name.

So, it’s trivially easy to get the information these creationists keep demanding, which leads to an obvious question: If the creationists are truly interested in the data, why don’t they look it up and read through it themselves? Why do they have to ask us to find it for them?

The answer is obvious….they’re not at all interested. They’re not asking in good faith. They’re posing them as “stump the evolutionist” challenges, not questions, because they believe the data doesn’t exist. So when we show it to them, they ignore it and just move on to another one, as Deeje did yesterday.

In sum, my suggestion is to approach these situations a bit differently. When a creationist asks for you to “show the data”, we should start by asking if them why they want to see it. Are they really interested? Will they even look at it? Are they at all open to the possibility that the data exists?

And if they answer in the affirmative to those questions, have them commit to what we would expect the data to be if the evolutionary framework is accurate. Returning to the horse example, ask something like “Do you agree that if equids are the result of millions of years of evolutionary change, we would expect to see in the fossil record a pattern of change within and between species, with specimens exhibiting more modern-type traits as we move forward in time?” Only after they’ve agreed to all that should we be taking the time to look up, cite, and explain the data to them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If the intent is to try and change their mind then yes, I would say it's a waste of time. If your intent is to make your POV accessible and hone your arguments for your own sake then I would not say it's a waste of time.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Pfft - where's your data on why there are still monkeys?

 

[Jose Fly]

If the intent is to try and change their mind then yes, I would say it's a waste of time.

Ok, keep that in mind.

If your intent is to make your POV accessible

But as we've seen, the evolutionary POV is readily accessible, especially to those who have access to a computer and the internet (which everyone at this forum obviously has).

and hone your arguments for your own sake then I would not say it's a waste of time.

But to what end are you honing your arguments? Who are you honing them for? Other creationists? And why? As you noted above, citing and explaining data to them is a waste of time.

 

[Sapiens]

If they understood the data then they'd not be creationists. If they do not understand the data, why would they bother to read it?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But as we've seen, the evolutionary POV is readily accessible, especially to those who have access to a computer and the internet (which everyone at this forum obviously has).

I didn't say 'make evolutionary POV readily accessible,' I said make my POV readily accessible. I have an evolutionary POV, but more importantly I have relationships with people here and I want them to know my perspective, so they can better understand where I'm coming from. And the best place to get that information is from the horses mouth. My intent in sharing my perspective isn't to change minds, but to share what I believe.

But to what end are you honing your arguments? Who are you honing them for? Other creationists? And why? As you noted above, citing and explaining data to them is a waste of time.

I'm honing them for myself. So I can better understand the debate for me. So I know how I would respond to various questions and challenges. To make my view more well-rounded. My understanding has changed over the years, as has modern data, so debating helps my perspective keep up. And makes me understand exactly how and why my responses have changed and haven't changed.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't say 'make evolutionary POV readily accessible,' I said make my POV readily accessible.

But remember, I'm specifically talking about instances where creationists ask for the data. I'm not talking about creationists asking for people to outline their personal POVs.

I have an evolutionary POV, but more importantly I have relationships with people here and I want them to know my perspective, so they can better understand where I'm coming from. And the best place to get that information is from the horses mouth. My intent in sharing my perspective isn't to change minds, but to share what I believe.

See above.

I'm honing them for myself. So I can better understand the debate for me. So I know how I would respond to various questions and challenges. To make my view more well-rounded.

Now that I agree with and understand.

My understanding has changed over the years, as has modern data, so debating helps my perspective keep up. And makes me understand exactly how and why my responses have changed and haven't changed.

Then by all means, explain away! My post was specifically for those of us who are already familiar with the science taking time and effort to present and explain it to a group of people who more than likely will never look at it in the first place.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But remember, I'm specifically talking about instances where creationists ask for the data. I'm not talking about creationists asking for people to outline their personal POVs.

Even assuming I don't have a relationship with said creationist and am sharing my POV with them, most debates don't occur in a vacuum. When I post here on RF it's not just for the person who I'm speaking directly with, but anyone else who might be interested in my take on something, too.
The debate that convinced me to leave an anti-science sect (JWs) didn't come from a debate I was having, after all. It came from two friends I knew who were debating among themselves and I was a non-participating listener.

 

[Jose Fly]

Even assuming I don't have a relationship with said creationist and am sharing my POV with them, most debates don't occur in a vacuum. When I post here on RF it's not just for the person who I'm speaking directly with, but anyone else who might be interested in my take on something, too.
The debate that convinced me to leave an anti-science sect (JWs) didn't come from a debate I was having, after all. It came from two friends I knew who were debating among themselves and I was a non-participating listener.

I do sympathize with the appeal to lurkers argument, but I'm just not convinced that it's a significant enough factor to justify spending lots of time looking up, posting, and explaining the science of evolutionary biology to a group of people who've already decided that they won't accept any of it.

And I'm someone who used to spend lots of time doing that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I do sympathize with the appeal to lurkers argument, but I'm just not convinced that it's a significant enough factor to justify spending lots of time looking up, posting, and explaining the science of evolutionary biology to a group of people who've already decided that they won't accept any of it.

And I'm someone who used to spend lots of time doing that.

It certainly might be more significant to me just because I came from that background. But I don't spend as much time as others participating in debates with creationists, mostly because I consider it part of my free time I must allocate wisely. And if I do debate, it's usually for the aforementioned honing my argument for myself, and any non-participants who get anything out of it is just a bonus.

 

[Skwim]

If they understood the data then they'd not be creationists.

Not necessarily. Many Christians deliberately reject evidence, no matter how persuasive, that goes against or weakens their theology.

.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One commonality among most of the creationists in this forum is ...

(at this point I'm expecting a shallow and self-serving over-generalization in the service of ...)

The answer is obvious….they’re not at all interested. They’re not asking in good faith.

(... a petulant ad hominem attack.)

For what it's worth, this has not been my experience here, and I've argued with far more than my share of YEC.

 

[Jose Fly]

If they understood the data then they'd not be creationists. If they do not understand the data, why would they bother to read it?

The problem is, creationists didn't reach their creationist position after objectively and thoroughly reviewing the scientific data and concluding that it was lacking and/or actually supported creationism. They're creationists because their religious beliefs demand it.

IOW, this whole thing is a theological issue, not a scientific one, which means appealing to the data with creationists completely misses the point and will not be very productive.

 

[Jose Fly]

For what it's worth, this has not been my experience here, and I've argued with far more than my share of YEC.

I don't doubt you. But in my experience, what you describe is the exception rather than the norm. That's why it's so easy for me to cite specific examples of creationists doing exactly what I described.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

(at this point I'm expecting a shallow and self-serving over-generalization in the service of ...)

(... a petulant ad hominem attack.)

For what it's worth, this has not been my experience here, and I've argued with far more than my share of YEC.

I find myself putting less and less stock in "your experience." If you haven't seen the sorts of things @Jose Fly is referencing in the OP then you probably haven't been in any of the debates on the topics he's addressing. This sort of thing happens every time anyone posits anything as evidence for evolution. Every time. I have never seen a single case where evidence is accepted as such by advocates of YEC, or even just "creationists" who don't believe evolution is compatible with their world view. Ever. If it happened, then I was probably so shocked that my mind repressed the memory in order to protect itself.

 

[Jose Fly]

I find myself putting less and less stock in "your experience." If you haven't seen the sorts of things @Jose Fly is referencing in the OP then you probably haven't been in any of the debates on the topics he's addressing. This sort of thing happens every time anyone posits anything as evidence for evolution. Every time. I have never seen a single case where evidence is accepted as such by advocates of YEC, or even just "creationists" who don't believe evolution is compatible with their world view. Ever. If it happened, then I was probably so shocked that my mind repressed the memory in order to protect itself.

No one has any excuse for not seeing what I described in the OP. I provided links to show where Deeje behaved that way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find myself putting less and less stock in "your experience."

OK.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

OK.

<font color='periwinkle'>
<yawn>
You're welcome.
</yawn>
</font>

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No one has any excuse for not seeing what I described in the OP. I provided links to show where Deeje behaved that way.

Are you being dishonest or simply confused. Nowhere have I said that I have not seen what you describe. What I have said is that I have not seen it to be a "commonality among most of the creationists in this forum" from people not acting in good faith. You seem to be demonstrating the very characteristic that you've chosen to rail against.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you being dishonest or simply confused. Nowhere have I said that I have not seen what you describe. What I have said is that I have not seen it to be a "commonality among most of the creationists in this forum" from people not acting in good faith. You seem to be demonstrating the very characteristic that you've chosen to rail against.

???????????? Where did you see your name in my post?