Devising a simple test for creationists.

[ZombiePresident]

I'm sure you're all very much aware that the internet is crawling with creationists. I usually encounter them on forums of various natures.
Debating with them has become tiring, especially since as the debate drags on it becomes increasingly clear (if not immediately clear) creationists often don't know what they're talking about. Their knowledge deficit on the subject of evolution and cosmology is glaring, but they remain completely unaware of it.
One response that comes to mind is simply not responding to them, let them spew their ignorance to their hearts desire and don't get worked up over it.

However I often inadvertently encounter creationists who spew their rhetoric in online communities that are frequented by many individuals, not all of them scientifically literate. A number of them will be genuine fence sitters, and will watch the discussion unfolding with a certain level of interest. In such cases I often feel compelled to argue with the creationist and insert some science and reason into the discussion. However I still don't want to find myself in yet another long drawn out discussion with someone who has no firm grasp of the topic being discussed.

In order to determine if someone is worth debating or not, you need to know if the person you'll be arguing with has at least a basic understanding of the topic being discussed. You don't sit down for a serious game of chess with someone who's first remark is "what does that horse thingie do?"
It is with this in mind I got the idea for a short standard 5 to 10 question test you can use to determine whether or not a creationist is knowledgeable enough on the topic of evolution to be worth debating. Something that isn't condescending or mocking. Just some questions which would indicate that they at least understand what they're arguing against. Something that clearly demonstrates to everyone who is knowledgeable on the topic and who is not.

I myself was thinking of questions like "Evolution is guided entirely by chance: true or false." "Explain the significance of human chromosome #2" "Give a short definition of evolution" "Name 2 other radiometric dating methods besides carbon dating." etc

So I came here to look for some valuable input. Is this a good idea? Is it foolish? Got some excellent questions which could be part of the test?
Fire away

 

[Squawk]

Best one I've come up with on the fly went something like the following.

First, we were discussing hominid evolution. In particular increasing cranial capacity leadings towards humans (and ignoring that neanderthal had larger brains). The chappie said this was required for evolution.

I asked what he would call the reverse effect, brain size getting smaller. His response was "devolution". I suspect that would be a standard response amongst people who don't understand evolution whenever a given trait is seen to be "inferior" by common sense. So, for example, get slower, smaller, weaker etc.

This serves a couple of purposes. First up, it's a piss easy way to show that the person doesn't understand. Second, it's a trivial way to show them that they don't understand, since you can segway nicely into a discussion on what evolution actually is, having bypassed all their standard objections.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

To be honest, I think there is only one question that needs to be asked of a creationist. That question is if they know the biological definition of evolution. If they cannot answer this question correctly, then it seems obvious that they do not know anything about the subject of evolutionary biology. I also like pointing out that they did not know the first thing about evolution, which should make any bystanders of the discussion know that the creationist is no authority on the subject. One can also tell how ignorant of the subject the creationist is by the answer that is given (e.g. evolution has six different definitions, evolution says rocks turned into humans, evolution is a religion made by man to cast doubt on god, ect...).

However, if you are looking for more involved test, I believe this video does a great job forming that test:

​

 

[ZombiePresident]

After some tinkering, I have come up with this list

Please answer the following questions

Does Evolution rely entirely on randomness?

Does Evolution violate the 2nd law of Thermo Dynamics?

Does Evolution say anything about the origin of life?

Does Evolution deny the existence of god?

Is it true that there are no transitional fossils?

Is Evolution a religion?

Is it true that increased information in a genome has never been observed

Did Darwin recant on his death bed

Name 2 other Radiometric dating methods, besides carbon dating.

In human evolution, what is the significance of human chromosome #2

Would you ever in all seriousness ask this question: "If evolution says we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Please give a short definition of the theory of evolution.

How's this?

 

[Case]

Test-retest reliability for tests consisting solely of dichotomous items is pretty bad, you might want to consider adding more items (around 100-200) or changing the questionnaire to an actual test by introducing a Likert scale (of course you'd have to construct good items, too, which is fairly labour-intensive) and standardising/norming it properly. Without standardisation, your "test" won't have any validity to speak of. Getting creationists to provide scores will be quite the undertaking, though, I'd imagine.

Edit: I see you have included some open questions... well, they're a bitch to score, especially with large numbers of test-takers, which you will need if you want to standardise your test. Of course how much time and effort you want to put in is entirely up to you, but I suggest changing the format. If you do not want to standardise the test, and therefore leave it to be the questionnaire it is, you can't generalise your "findings", should there ever be any.

Furthermore, your current items contain non-neutral wording, which is never a good thing.

Judging from what I see (mostly questions related to factual knowledge), I suggest you make it a multiple-choice test as that would be easiest to norm and score.

 

[justsomefnguy]

First let me just say that is an excellent list ZombiePresident, and I would certainly vote for it (and you) if there was an election. I spent a lot of time on irc doing the evolution/creation debate. It started at about the same time I was actually studying evolution in college, so it was actually a fantastic way for me reinforce what I had learned and find gaps in my knowledge to fill them. Eventually, however, I noticed something quite peculiar. I had to do this every time. Literally any time the discussion came up I would not only have to give a short lecture on what evolution actually was (as compared to what they claimed it was) I was also having to explain the basic principles of science. Now my instructors were actually making a living doing this same thing and I had put quite a bit of work into myself, both in the classroom and on my own. It hardly seemed fair that these intellectually incurious dolts were getting a free education that they usually didn't appreciate or even absorb. At that point I instituted a policy of refusing to discuss the matter until they were able to adequately define science and how scientific methodology is applied along with at least an approximation of what evolution actually is. Needless to say, this pretty much ended any further debate on the topic.

So thats my test, just have the person, in their own words, explain science and biological evolutionary theory. Then point out they can hardly argue against something they have no proper concept of. Its not very satisfying, but it does avoid the larger disappointment of engaging in a full on argument with someone that has no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Laurens]

Here's my test for creationists:

Do you understand what evolution is?
A. Yes
B. No

If A congratulations you may continue with the debate.

If B, please fuck off and go to a library.

 

[WarK]

Here's my test for creationists:

Do you understand what evolution is?
A. Yes
B. No

If A congratulations you may continue with the debate.

If B, please fuck off and go to a library.

but all the creationists claim to understand evolution

 

[Laurens]

Here's my test for creationists:

Do you understand what evolution is?
A. Yes
B. No

If A congratulations you may continue with the debate.

If B, please fuck off and go to a library.

but all the creationists claim to understand evolution

We can rig them up to a lie detector when we ask them

 

[Laurens]

Or change the question to 'have you studied evolution from any sources other than creationist literature'?

 

[WarK]

just ask them what evolution says about crocoduck

 

[Case]

one line in one post, one line in a new post some seconds later

Why do you double post all the time instead of editing?

 

[RedYellow]

Try asking them what sort of specific things would falsify evolution. It would be a way of inviting them to attack it, instead of defending it as they would generally expect. You could ask them to specifically address the fossil record, and keep them away from specific claims against it, just ask them in general what sorts of things would cause the fossil record to be a problem for evolution.


The fossil record is my favorite thing to bring up, because they have to come up with the most absurd story to explain it, (the flood-neatly-sorting-fossils-to-fit-evolution theory) You can tell it's embarassing for them and it is a tacit admission that the fossil record at least looks like evolution happened.

 

[ZombiePresident]

just ask them what evolution says about crocoduck

I had the idea of using a picture of a crocoduck and asking them if this is what evolution says transitional fossils should look like.

Try asking them what sort of specific things would falsify evolution. It would be a way of inviting them to attack it, instead of defending it as they would generally expect. You could ask them to specifically address the fossil record, and keep them away from specific claims against it, just ask them in general what sorts of things would cause the fossil record to be a problem for evolution.


The fossil record is my favorite thing to bring up, because they have to come up with the most absurd story to explain it, (the flood-neatly-sorting-fossils-to-fit-evolution theory) You can tell it's embarassing for them and it is a tacit admission that the fossil record at least looks like evolution happened.

You raise a good point, and I'll have to think about formulating a proper question.
However, often when I bring up the fossil record all I get from them is a rant about how transitional fossils don't exist and have never been found.
You can post whatever fossils you want and see them engage in a form of amateur arm chair paleontology.
"Nope, that's just a bird." "Nope that's just a monkey" something along those lines. It's very frustrating.
I am not an expert, I can refer to the work and opinions of experts but the creationists will simply refuse to acknowledge their expertise.


EDIT: I've modified the test a little.
Opinions?

Please answer the following questions to establish that you understand the theory of evolution.


Does Evolution rely entirely on randomness? Yes/No

Does Evolution violate the 2nd law of Thermo Dynamics? Yes/No

Does Evolution say anything about the origin of life? Yes/No

Does Evolution deny the existence of god? Yes/No

Is Evolution a Religion? Yes/No

Is it true that there are no transitional fossils? Yes/No

Is it true that increased information in a genome has never been observed? Yes/No

Did Darwin recant on his death bed? Yes/No

Would you ever in all seriousness ask this question: "If evolution says we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Yes/ No


- Open questions, be brief. You can make your argument after you have answered them -


Name 2 other Radiometric dating methods, besides carbon dating.

In human evolution, what is the significance of human chromosome #2

Give a short explanation on how the scientific method works.

Please give a short definition of the theory of evolution.


BONUS QUESTION: Can you explain, with evidence, why creationists / ID proponents do not publish their research in mainstream peer reviewed science journals
without resorting to a global conspiracy.

 

[andy4226uk]

Please answer the following questions to establish that you understand the theory of evolution.


Does Evolution rely entirely on randomness? Yes/No

Does Evolution violate the 2nd law of Thermo Dynamics? Yes/No

Does Evolution say anything about the origin of life? Yes/No

Does Evolution deny the existence of god? Yes/No

Is Evolution a Religion? Yes/No

Is it true that there are no transitional fossils? Yes/No

Is it true that increased information in a genome has never been observed? Yes/No

Did Darwin recant on his death bed? Yes/No

Would you ever in all seriousness ask this question: "If evolution says we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Yes/ No


- Open questions, be brief. You can make your argument after you have answered them -


Name 2 other Radiometric dating methods, besides carbon dating.

In human evolution, what is the significance of human chromosome #2

Give a short explanation on how the scientific method works.

Please give a short definition of the theory of evolution.


BONUS QUESTION: Can you explain, with evidence, why creationists / ID proponents do not publish their research in mainstream peer reviewed science journals
without resorting to a global conspiracy.

I really like this idea, and the content of the questions. However, I would phrase a couple of the questions slightly differently as follows:

3) What does evolution have to say about the origin of life?

If the answer to this is anything except "nothing", then give them 0 points.

9) Is evolution disproved by the fact that both humans and monkeys exist? Yes/No

 

[Dean]

@Squawk

[. . .]First, we were discussing hominid evolution. In particular increasing cranial capacity leadings towards humans (and ignoring that neanderthal had larger brains). The chappie said this was required for evolution.

Your statement seems to remind me, for obvious reasons, of the sort of thing that Kent Hovind would say. I.e. that evolution is some "march" forward. Forward by who's standards, I ask them? Common sense? Really? Ignoring the dishonest statement that you pointed out, brain size has little correlation with intelligence. Just look at sperm whales, the biggest brains of any living organism, probably with around the intelligence of a dolphin. See (Kent Hovind said): "Evolution says we started off tiny, and we're getting bigger and better and stronger and smarter. I think the bible indicates that we started of tall and smart. and we're getting shorter and weaker and dumber. I would we interested to know how this person's outlook had changed, after you having had this discussion with him/her? It would sure be good to know if he/she changed her mind..?
Which leads me to....

[. . .]I asked what he would call the reverse effect, brain size getting smaller. His response was "devolution". I suspect that would be a standard response amongst people who don't understand evolution whenever a given trait is seen to be "inferior" by common sense. So, for example, get slower, smaller, weaker etc.[. . .]

:lol: Despite being a mere 1st year Palaeobiology student with only a basic understanding of the workings of evolution so far, it's difficult for me to help laughing out loud when I hear terms like "devolution" or "de-evolution". Nowhere does it say in evolutionary theory that a certain phenotype of an organism (or it's gene pool ) can be deemed to be "inferior" or "down-hill" (just see onceforgivennowfree's youtube channel) according to one's own standards. You may recall, on a Magic Sandwich Show some time ago, youtube user "truthfulchristian", attempted to "refute" evolution by telling the hosts that the average size of pine-cones was decreasing over time. Despite there being no basis for making such a preposterous claim, assuming that it IS true, who is to say whether or not a decrease in average size is an evolutionary advantage? Perhaps it is a waste of ones' valuable time to argue with such individuals.... Still, going off on bloody tangents now, I shall continue:

[. . .]This serves a couple of purposes. First up, it's a piss easy way to show that the person doesn't understand. Second, it's a trivial way to show them that they don't understand, since you can segway nicely into a discussion on what evolution actually is, having bypassed all their standard objections.

Unfortunately, most creationists in my own experience, though I've never spoken to one face-to-face, subscribe to some form of fundamentalism, meaning that they are far too set in their ways to even consider that they could be wrong. As such, it comes back to their religious doctrine. Does their holy book have a solid [verifiable] foundation? Well... the bible is true because it says it's true, and if it says it's true then it must be true, and round and round and round we go... I know this down to some friends on the internet who have actively engaged with creationists on such subjects. I maintain a positive attitude, whilst being uncertain as to whether or not we could "turn away" so to speak, those individuals who are deluded by creationist and Fundamentalist apologetics. We should be trying to reach out to those who are deluded by such "political" creationists. It's a worthy goal, undeniably, but easier said than done, as I have explained here....

Morning, all! (10:00 AM here in the UK).

 

[nefariousvirtuoso]

What is a theory ? ... end.