borrofburi
New Member
tl;dr version: read the colored text (obviously).
My own piece of advice, this applies to creationists who do not have an agenda (i.e. not Hovind or VFX or any PCS):
The theory of evolution is a VERY wide umbrella for a number of explanations for a number of phenomena. Each person you talk to will have a different problem (usually from some form of incredulity) with evolution. Very few these days will have any problem with the concept "allele frequencies in a population change over time". Indeed, very few will have a problem with natural selection (because of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, or multi-drug-resistant TB).
Common specific problems include: speciation, nested heirarchy / common descent, punctuated equilibrium, among others. Many will not even have a specific problem with evolution, but rather abiogenesis. Some have a specific problem with the concept of "I don't know".
Regardless, creationists all have various perceived "problems" with evolution (and sometimes abiogenesis (and even rarer various forms of cosmology). FIND out what they are! You get no where in merely responding to their arguments, their arguments are almost NEVER the real "reason" they won't accept evolution. ASK specifically, directly, why precisely *they* don't accept evolution in as humble a manner as you possibly can, you really are interested in *them* specifically, in *their* specific objections. Do not ask "so what precisely is your problem with evolution?" (because that implies negativity and a sense of arrogance) ask them "You seem to be fine with the idea that 'allele frequency in populations change over time' and with the concept of selection, so what precisely do you disagree with, what precisely is your objection? Is it the idea of new species? Is it the idea of punctuated equilibrium, that the rates of change are not constant over time?" Etc. almost ALWAYS they'll object to the idea of new species, whether this is because they object to nested heirarchy or they object to speciation is a further thing to determine. Almost always it is better to start with speciation and explain how that happens and the fuzzy logic associated with speciation. If you can establish that this is what we observe these days (through ring species), you can then show how speciation would result in a nested heirarchy.
Creationists who are not a PCS simply don't understand evolution, this is primarily because they've simply never had it explained to them for a variety of irrelevant reasons. Make the conversation NOT about who is right, but about explaining evolution to them (and do this WITHOUT sounding arrogant and superior, you are not the high overlord of evolution imparting your amazing knowledge to them, to come accross in any form any where near to this will alienate them from you and put up their "lalal la la I'm not listening" guards). My favorite resource as a simple explanation tool is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ
Questions are your ally, primarily if you're the one asking them. Use them. Primarily use them to find out exactly why your conversation partner disagrees with evolution, that's extremely important for the above reasons.
Also be precise and specific with the range of the conversation, do NOT introduce a new topic and do not allow them to introduce a new topic if you can help it, this is perhaps the primary reason why you have to find out precisely what the creationist disagrees with. "Evolution" is too broad a topic and you can take many semesters of biology and still barely understand it. Get it down to something much more specific, like speciation, and STAY THERE.
Huh, I guess I had a lot to say on the subject.
My own piece of advice, this applies to creationists who do not have an agenda (i.e. not Hovind or VFX or any PCS):
The theory of evolution is a VERY wide umbrella for a number of explanations for a number of phenomena. Each person you talk to will have a different problem (usually from some form of incredulity) with evolution. Very few these days will have any problem with the concept "allele frequencies in a population change over time". Indeed, very few will have a problem with natural selection (because of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, or multi-drug-resistant TB).
Common specific problems include: speciation, nested heirarchy / common descent, punctuated equilibrium, among others. Many will not even have a specific problem with evolution, but rather abiogenesis. Some have a specific problem with the concept of "I don't know".
Regardless, creationists all have various perceived "problems" with evolution (and sometimes abiogenesis (and even rarer various forms of cosmology). FIND out what they are! You get no where in merely responding to their arguments, their arguments are almost NEVER the real "reason" they won't accept evolution. ASK specifically, directly, why precisely *they* don't accept evolution in as humble a manner as you possibly can, you really are interested in *them* specifically, in *their* specific objections. Do not ask "so what precisely is your problem with evolution?" (because that implies negativity and a sense of arrogance) ask them "You seem to be fine with the idea that 'allele frequency in populations change over time' and with the concept of selection, so what precisely do you disagree with, what precisely is your objection? Is it the idea of new species? Is it the idea of punctuated equilibrium, that the rates of change are not constant over time?" Etc. almost ALWAYS they'll object to the idea of new species, whether this is because they object to nested heirarchy or they object to speciation is a further thing to determine. Almost always it is better to start with speciation and explain how that happens and the fuzzy logic associated with speciation. If you can establish that this is what we observe these days (through ring species), you can then show how speciation would result in a nested heirarchy.
Creationists who are not a PCS simply don't understand evolution, this is primarily because they've simply never had it explained to them for a variety of irrelevant reasons. Make the conversation NOT about who is right, but about explaining evolution to them (and do this WITHOUT sounding arrogant and superior, you are not the high overlord of evolution imparting your amazing knowledge to them, to come accross in any form any where near to this will alienate them from you and put up their "lalal la la I'm not listening" guards). My favorite resource as a simple explanation tool is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
This is the way the vast majority of debates are: you are NOT going to change your opponents mind, you arguing in order to win over the fence-sitters in the audience of your debate. This is not how all conversations with creationists go, and if you treat a non-PCS creationist like this you will only make him emotionally hostile to evolution, so you need to be careful that you don't misjudge them. That having been said this is how most debates are:Squawk said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ
Even as a tentative creationist (i.e. I was extremely skeptical of evolution due to religious reasons, but not religiously or dogmatically opposed), it took somewhere around a full semester of AP Bio to convince me, and I was not terribly attached to creationism. Creationism can often verge on what "Evid3nc3" calls a "mega-belief" (borrowing from network theory), it takes a TON of evidence from a wide variety of sources to change someone's mind, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT AS DELUDED AS VFX, indeed, even when they are barely deluded at all, as I once was.Squawk said:
Questions are your ally, primarily if you're the one asking them. Use them. Primarily use them to find out exactly why your conversation partner disagrees with evolution, that's extremely important for the above reasons.
Also be precise and specific with the range of the conversation, do NOT introduce a new topic and do not allow them to introduce a new topic if you can help it, this is perhaps the primary reason why you have to find out precisely what the creationist disagrees with. "Evolution" is too broad a topic and you can take many semesters of biology and still barely understand it. Get it down to something much more specific, like speciation, and STAY THERE.
Huh, I guess I had a lot to say on the subject.