Dawkins already said that the creationists cannot be reasoned with. So ridicule is appropriate. Now if it’s polite ridicule, will a “fence sitter” be influenced? Or will a “fence sitter” be offended by the lack of “respect” for a creationist’s nonsense?

“My own goal is not really changing people’s minds; it’s understanding the world, getting things right, and having productive conversations.”

This post is “productive” if you have said something reasonable. But, as far as creationists are concerned, there are no worthwhile opponents and your post is useless.

if people would just critically self-analyze their own reasons for believing this, that or the other, there might be a move towards the rational. or is that just wishful thinking..? it is the matter of questioning everything and allowing people choice that’s the important.

ideally parents would teach their children how to think rather than what to think, what better gift for a child?

i recall a discussion with a theist that revealed the underlying point i am making. we discussed the idea of how children should be brought up and it came down to this, my own up bringing meant i valued the freedom and security that autonomous thought gave me and so i would give my children the choice to come to any conclusion about belief they think is appropriate. He on the other hand said he could (indeed must) teach his children that the word of god was the truth and that any questioning of that premise would only undermine and damage his children. in other words his belief did not allow for choice.

that is a form of oppression, and more importantly, oppression of a child(ren).

to get back to the point, lets pursue argument promoting the questioning your own convictions and belief and in so doing allow people to reach their own conclusions about what seems more reasonable.

the irredeemably faithful will not be swayed, but perhaps the fence-sitters and unthinkers could be jolted into rational thought… i live in hope…

Point out that even the Pope and Vatican (they don’t want a scientist’s opinion) thinks they are crackpots (easy to find on a search), young earth “theory” got it’s start in a church basement in 1960, and let them fume.

I agree that mockery should be left to comedians – but changing people’s minds might be more important than you think. Sure, it feels cheap and unproductive to explain simple facts and implications to people who believe whatever people they trust (because of shared opinions, social/religious backgrounds and so on) tell them to believe.
But look at all these “artificial grass-roots movements” in the USA right now. Like what seems to be happening at these “town-hall meetings” concerning the health-care reform. A few pundits started saying that the reform will introduce “death panels” and “(mandatory) euthanasia for old people”. It’s pretty clever actually, because A) It’s a very clear message that anyone can understand (and be outraged about), B) Rational people (or anyone who knows what’s in the bill) will simply dismiss it as crackpots rambling about nonsense – maybe they’ll make a humorous comment or two that only they will really get and C) when someone eventually understands that yes, a considerable fraction of the population actually believes this bullshit, the insanity will be so big and deep-rooted that there’s nothing you can do.
Now imagine this actually leads to the health-care reform being canceled. It’s not that funny anymore, is it?
So while we are above manipulating the crazies or the “passionate, well-meaning but gullible” there are those who are willing to do it for selfish reasons. I don’t think we should do the same, but I do think the gloves need to come off. Not by mocking, but by listening and educating.

Hmm. I don’t think this is a fair criticism of this dialogue. I’d never heard of Nelson before and maybe he has a history as a crackpot that I don’t know about, but I thought he didn’t come off as one here, except in admitting that he was a young earther (when Numbers asked him). Numbers did not press him too much on this conviction, and the discussion veered toward topics in the philosophy of science. I found the discussion interesting and enjoyable in spite of the fact that I learned he was a young earther. Nelson was quite engaging and articulate, and I think this is the real source of worry: if fence sitters on the evolution debate are favorably impressed by how Nelson comports himself on a number of other matters, then maybe his stance on the age of the Earth deserves another look. And in fact THIS is the real reason so many people don’t want him back on BH.tv.

I think this well-meaning and oft-repeated guideline is fundamentally mistaken. Argument isn’t just about abstract disputation and debate; it is also about conflict, winning over minds and achieving victory over the other side. When you enter into a debate with a reasonable prior expectation of changing your mind by the end of it, then yes, you expose yourself to the best arguments against your views. When instead you have a sufficiently high prior confidence in your views (say on creationism, homeopathy, global warming and the like), the point isn’t to try and formulate a harmonious meeting of the best possible minds. It is to isolate, marginalize and render impotent the other side.

Where the conflict model applies, you defend against the weapons your opponents actually use, not what they would use were they making their best possible case. You wouldn’t fight against people with boxcutters by making bomb shelters. If ninety percent of your adversaries go around calling fortuitous coincidences miracles and unfortunate ones evidence for the inscrutability of God, if they think praying to said God is a clever way of ensuring longevity and health, then these are positions worth debunking, whether or not they meet with the approval of the best theologians. Leave to your opponents the R&D question of which arguments are best supports for their view, intellectually and politically, and set to the opposition’s theologians the task of understanding why their sophisticated views are so suasively inert. If for whatever reason Godel’s modal argument for theism doesn’t convince the Answers in Genesis crowd, so much the worse for it. Divine watchmaker is what must be confronted then…

It may sound as if I’m contradicting my earlier post, but I’m not: I’m inclined to agree with this, too. One problem with crackpots is that their ideas don’t always stay restricted to whatever tiny fringe they started in. The alarming recent statistic for the number of Republicans taking the birther nonsense seriously comes to mind. Lots of people rejecting the legitimacy of a democratically elected president could lead to ugly consequences. So by all means, crackpot notions need to be debunked, and sometimes in no pleasant terms. It helps, though, if you can do it with a minimum of self-congratulation.

I had a look at your blog. It seems interesting; but, sadly, I read hardly a word of Dutch (I can handle German (with some help from a dictionary); not close enough, though).

Unfortunately, that political point seems to me to be incontrovertible. If you want to promote science education in a country as religious as the United States, head-on assaults on religion are unlikely to help you in reaching your goal. Tarring a good politician like Eugenie Scott as an “appeaser” doesn’t change the brute facts on the ground one bit. She would, I’m sure, prefer never to have to discuss religion at all. But when religion raises its ugly head, “no necessary conflict” is a convenient way of turning the discussion elsewhere (toward what Scott really cares about), and, given religion’s wonderful capacity for refutation-evasion, it may even be true.

You go on to state: “One of the least pleasant aspects of the atheist/skeptical community is the widespread delight in picking out the very stupidest examples of what they disagree with, holding them up for sustained ridicule, and then patting themselves on the back for how rational they all are. It’s not the only thing that happens, but it happens an awful lot, and the joy that people get out of it can become a bit tiresome.”

I fully agree. And, after a more than ordinarily tiresome back-and-forth with some of P.Z. Myers’ sycophants–on the subject of his “crackergate” stunt–I found myself reminded that atheism is no guarantee of that purported rationality.