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.