Some people say that scientists should debate IDers more, but I am of the opinion that giving them the time of day in a debate is an indication that their position is one to be respected. I would not give a geocentrist the time of day – maybe pause to scoff but no more. IDers are like children looking for attention and trying to get what they want through annoyance.

The best course of action is to ignore them and make sure it’s taught and taught well in school. Even that might not help, but that is the role we should play. Religion and science clash in this respect, and where there is creationist religion (of any flavor not just Judeo-Christian) evolution will be looked upon with skepticism. Since children have already been introduced to religion before school even starts, it has a more solid foundation than science ever will. I went to Catholic school from pre-school through junior high, and I realized something wasn’t right with religion long before there was any talk of evolution.

Children are well able to assess situations and make decisions for themselves. If presented evolution in schools, they can figure out if they agree with it. After high school, though, their bias is pretty much set and unlikely to move. This is based on my own observations, though, and if there is any research done contradicting this I was love to see it. I am guessing though that the people we are trying to reach are already lost. Pointless debates just waste our time and energy and raise our blood pressure.

Let’s focus on getting evolution taught in schools and slapping down ID/creationists when they make a nuisance of themselves.

Didn’t it take over 200 years to disprove spontaneous generation? These things just take time.

Way to subtly shovel Creationists and 9/11 Truthers into the same category there, Phil. Typical closed-minded elitism. Even Obama’s top Environmental Adviser supports the (heavily evidence-backed) idea that there was government involvement in 9/11. Maybe it’s time to take your mind out of the box, BA.
____________

It’s also a fallacy to shovel all “9/11 Truthers” into the same category. There is a wide variety of belief within this community, from those who believe the Chinese did it to those who believe Mossad did it to those who believe Bush did it to those who merely believe Bush allowed it to happen. And each faction has evidence to support their claim. However, they still operate on the same logical premise – they start with a belief and work backwards to find – and if necessary, distort or reinterpret the facts. Any missing links are then explained by the usual ludicrous notion of government coverup.

Way to subtly shovel Creationists and 9/11 Truthers into the same category there, Phil.

Uh, yeah? Similar level of reality-denial, perhaps?

Typical closed-minded elitism.

Only if you have evidence to demonstrate this allegation.

Based, however, on your previous comments on Phil’s blog, I very much doubt that you do.

Even Obama’s top Environmental Adviser supports the (heavily evidence-backed) idea that there was government involvement in 9/11.

Obama’s environmental adviser does not need any expertise in structural engineering to do his/her job. Therefore, your argument from authority carries no weight.

You also throw in a statement that there is evidence to show government involvement in 9/11. Show it to us (or, better yet, link to it and provide a brief precis to demonstrate your own understanding of it).

Maybe it’s time to take your mind out of the box, BA.

You have not shown that this is necessary. You have not even shown that there is a box in the first place.

I am willing to trust Robert Wright’s explanation of the Behe affair

Again… you go ahead and “trust.” Others will wonder why. I suspect some would rather not “trust” and just “know” that Creationists and IDers are not welcome there. It’d be nice to know that Robert Wright would not give them a platform. Unfortunately is all too willing.

I am willing to trust Robert Wright’s explanation of the Behe affair;
I applaud BHTV for making a commitment to discuss controversial matters including the intersection of science and religion, while most of the world is pretending the controversy doesn’t exist;
I accept that this noble commitment may sometimes go wrong, as in the admittedly and admitted foolish mistake of having Behe interviewed by a non-biologist who couldn’t call his BS;
I observe that noble commitments to repeatedly discuss dangerous controversies cannot possibly be expected to go right every time;
I put forth that people who have served us well in the past, should be allowed more chance than this to recover from their (or their coworkers’) errors – even more than one error, so long as mistakes don’t seem to be happening systematically;
And I announce my intention to stay on Bloggingheads.tv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G9awnDCmg

A great many 9/11 Truthers are in fact engineers – I don’t get that part. Were you under the false impression they weren’t?

Engineers or physicists, yes, but I am under the impression that few or in a relevant field (the relevant field would be failure engineering, with civil, architectural, and solid mechanical engineering being close enough to be worth having some relevance). Engineers in the U.S. are also slightly more likely than scientists to be creationists, although much less likely than the average American. Although it expressly forbidden by the engineering code of ethics, there still seems to be the temptation for some engineers to think their engineering training makes them experts on anything, including engineering fields they know absolutely nothing about. A software or electrical engineer is no more likely to understand a building than the average person on the street, and an engineer in fluid mechanics only knows a little bit more (probably having taken a couple of general mechanics courses junior and senior year of undergrad) but no where near enough to be considered an expert. So saying someone is an engineer does not mean anything unless they actually know about the relevant areas of engineering, you might as well point out that a lot of 9/11 truthers are used car salesmen (not that they are, but such a person would have just as much expertise as someone in an unrelated field of engineering).

That is even more true for evolution. The only field of engineering that could be considered to give even the slightest bit of expertise in evolution is biomedical engineering (aka bioengineering or biological engineering). There people are at least required to have courses on and understand the basics of biology, although I would not consider such people to have expertise beyond an undergrad biology major unless their work somehow involves evolution. That is more common than you might guess, though, since evolution is such a central concept in biology. Evolution has the habit of showing up in the most unlikely places.

I wouldn’t be surprised if such a study already exists, but I imagine that if you put someone who is completly neutral on evolution and had them listen to a debate between a creationist and a scientist the neutral party would end-up following the creationist a lot more often. Why? Because they can make up “facts” as they go and the second he makes up something the scientist doesn’t have an immediate answer too, the game’s over. But again, maybe I’m totally off base on this and I hope someone can prove me wrong.

Actually, I mostly agree with this.

The whole point about such staged debates is that the science can be complex and involved and therefore difficult to convey in a few words without resorting to caricature. OTOH, the creationist side has no substance, so they can make up simple soundbites that are easy for the uninformed to digest. Sometimes I think they must hold contests to see which creationist can come up with the most logical fallacies or lies per sentence.

I think a much better way to “engage” the public is through fascinating television, speechs, podcasts, ect. The quintessential example would be Carl Sagan’s Cosmos television series. These formats allow the science educated to get facts out there without having to be constantly on the defensive or being side-tracked by whatever random crap the creationist could think up.

Also, organizing events, getting local pro-science activist groups together and running programs, summer camps for the science minded, ect ect. These are all infinitly better ways to go about things then trying to debate these guys.

Plus trying to fix the education system in the first place.

Yeah, trouble with that particular tack is, recent studies have suggested the appendix does indeed play a useful role, as a safe haven for beneficial bacteria during bouts of intestinal illness, if nothing else.

Fuel for the fundies. “See? God knows how to design a human better than any scientist.”

Yeah, but it’s not like ID actually made this prediction or anything, so there is still some basis on which to challenge them.

And it was science that discovered the probable function of the appendix.

In essence, I support your decision, but I’m worried that if virtually everyone walks away from bloggingheads.tv that leaves an unexploited venue and an opening for nefarious means.

Chip, I noticed that in your reiteration of those who fail to accept reality “.. creationism, the birthers, Holocaust deniers, evolution deniers, …” You conveniently leave out one of Phil’s examples. 9/11 Truthers mysteriously vanishes from your list.

In response to this comment of Chip’s.

Chip (31) said:

such as creationism, the birthers, Holocaust deniers, evolution deniers, etc..etc.

Jason (leaving aside Chip’s tautology), you seem to have missed the meaning of the word “etc.”. Or should I say “words”? “Etc.” is an abbreviation of the latin term “et cetera”, meaning and the rest.

How does the term “and the rest” exclude the 9/11 “truthers”?

And there’s an inherent beauty in evolution that I feel is glossed over.

Agreed.

I find it quite beautiful to believe that I am related, however distantly, to every other human on the planet, that we’re all descendants of Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve (hypothetically)

It’s not hypothetical. There is strong evidence that there actually was a Y-chromosome “Adam” and a mitochondrial “Eve”. They lived about 100,000 years apart (IIRC), mind you, but the concepts are real nonetheless.

I’m not arguing for simply pointing out the flaws. The problem is that in every creation/evolution debate I’ve seen, evolution is always on the defensive and creation is always on the attack. A more proactive role would be to point out the flaws in creationism itself, not just their anti-science attacks. I’ve yet to see a scientist ask a creationist why God gave humans appendixes, or why He made Asians lactose-intolerant.

Then I suggest you hie thee over to TalkDesign (triple-dub dot talkdesign.org) and search under “jury-rigged design”. The appendix gets a mention, as do more obviously badly-designed things such as the human retina.

Lending your scientific integrity to any publication is no small thing. When that publication (new media or otherwise) begins to show its woo you have to make a decision. Stay and be a part of the Big Discussion! or move on, taking your expertise from those who would use it to maintain the luster of scientific integrity.

And that’s what folks like Behe are in need of. They are little boys wanting to sit at the big boy table. The men above have said no. And that was the correct move.

Well done.