How to debate/argue - tips and tricks

[Inferno]

In line with the suggestions I will give later on...
WARNING: The following text is written by a layman and as such is likely to contain errors. Said errors will hopefully be corrected later on.

Observation: People of the general public are often wrong about scientific issues. (e.g. Global warming, unwarranted trust in alternative medicine, fears regarding vaccination, creationism and so on) When trying to correct people on their mistakes, they usually believe them even more.

An example from personal testimony: I discussed the irrational beliefs of my aunt and her family (aunt, uncle, male cousin 1, male cousin 2, female cousin) with my male cousin 1 (from now on referred to only as "cousin"). One of their beliefs is that Erich von Däniken is (at least partially) right about UFO's and extra-terrestrials. In fact, my cousin staunchly believes not only that Aliens are possible (as do I) or that they may have landed in the past (as I do not), but in fact that they are on earth as we speak and that the government is actively trying to hush up their existence. Part of his "evidence" comes from von Däniken.
So one dreary afternoon, I tried to convince him that von Däniken was not only wrong and a liar, but that he even admitted to fabricating evidence. I showed him the fabrications, I showed him articles from notable scientists who disagreed with von Däniken and exposed him, and I even showed him quotes from von Däniken admitting to fabricating them.
You have one try to get this right: Did he change his mind, yes or no?
No, of course not. Evidence doesn't get in the way of ones beliefs, we know that from creationists. In fact, he defended von Däniken all the more after I showed him the quotes.

Problem: Now to get in a quote that's often misattributed to Stephen Hawking but is actually from Daniel J. Boorstin: "The history of Western science confirms the aphorism that the great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge."

What we have is a classic example of a whole number of cognitive biases stopping an individual from reaching logical and scientifically sound conclusions.

Aim: Now based on the above, I'd like to do the following: Using research from psychology but also using posts from blogs, come up with a number of suggestions that can help people argue more effectively and counteract the cognitive biases.

This is a work in progress, any corrections and suggestions are of course welcome.

As has already been pointed out on multiple occasions, there is a truly awesome series on YouTube called Psychology of belief. It is suggested you acquaint yourself with it before reading on.

The following is largely based on Lewandowsky et al. (2012). The gist of the whole thing can be found either here or, obviously, below.

By the way, Lewandowsky has some AMAZING stories online for public viewing. LINK

In the study, Lewandowsky et al. take us back through well-known truth-denials such as Obama's citizenship and the MMR vaccine wave-of-fear. A very interesting one is the Listerine false-claims retraction campaign. Basically, Listerine (a mouthwash) was claimed to cure colds, although it obviously couldn't. The FTC then told the company to stop spreading BS and retract the claim in an ad-campaign worth $ 10.2 million. They did just that, but a few years later, 57% of consumers still cited a key factor in buying Listerine was because it could cure colds. (compare: only 15% of consumers of a competing product)
Basically, getting rid of misinformation is really, really difficult.

An important notice:

Reliance on misinformation differs from ignorance, which we define as the absence of relevant knowledge. Ignorance, too, can have obvious detrimental effects on decision making, but, perhaps surprisingly, those effects may be less severe than those arising from reliance on misinformation. Ignorance may be a lesser evil because in the self-acknowledged absence of knowledge, people often turn to simple heuristics when making decisions. Those heuristics, in turn, can work surprisingly well, at least under favorable conditions. For example, mere
familiarity with an object often permits people to make accurate guesses about it (Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002; Newell & Fernandez, 2006). Moreover, people typically have relatively low levels of confidence in decisions made solely on the basis of such heuristics (De Neys, Cromheeke, & Osman, 2011; Glà¶ckner & Brà¶der, 2011). In other words, ignorance rarely leads to strong support for a cause, in contrast to false beliefs based on misinformation, which are often held strongly and with (perhaps infectious) conviction. For example, those who most vigorously reject the scientific evidence for climate change are also those who believe they are best informed about the subject (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Hmielowski, 2011).

I haven't put the research in the references below, but if you want to I can tell you exactly which papers they cite.
Now I think that paragraph on its own is, although many of us may already have suspected or know, very powerful. It tells us that creationists are probably also operating under the Dunning-Krueger-effect and they reject science all the more vigorously because of it. It would be easier to teach someone from scratch than have the person drop his/her beliefs and THEN learn it. I think it was AronRa who once said something similar to "I wouldn't be able to teach you because I'd first have to drive all the nonsense out of you first."

Another interesting, though not necessarily novel, tidbit is that emotionally evocative news or rumours are more likely to spread than neutral one. This is also what The Herb Garden Germination (Big Bang Theory) is about. What's more interesting though is that people will actually extract "knowledge" from sources they know are fiction and that even warnings aren't effective.

Again, a quote:

Marsh and Fazio (2006) reported that prior warnings were ineffective in reducing the acquisition of misinformation from fiction, and that acquisition was only reduced (not eliminated) under conditions of active on-line monitoring,when participants were instructed to actively monitor the contents of what they were reading and to press a key every time they encountered a piece of misinformation (see also Eslick, Fazio, & Marsh, 2011). Few people would be so alert and mindful when reading fiction for enjoyment.

So next time you read Harry Potter or watch Star Trek, keep a buzzer at the ready!

And if you want to laugh at Fox News watchers, do so now:

Stephen Kull and his colleagues (e.g., Kull et al., 2003) have repeatedly shown that the level of belief in misinformation among segments of the public varies dramatically according to preferred news outlets, running along a continuum from Fox News (whose viewers are the most misinformed on most issues) to National Public Radio (whose listeners are the least misinformed overall).

There are, of course, a myriad of things a deceitful person might do to hide the bollocks they're peddling: Print in high-color contrast, present it rhymed, deliver in familiar accent and print in easy-to-read font. (Comic Sans?!? Maybe that's why it's so popular!) Interestingly, the creationist tactic of "I'm a Doctor, Ph.D" seems to be sound: Expert testimony is always more persuasive and names (Exxon, BP, etc.) also give a story more credibility, even if the company has vested interest. (e.g. a climate-change is wrong study by Exxon)

What was new to me was that even a single person repeating a rumour multiple times can increase the chance of a person believing it.
"In a very real sense, a single repetitive voice can sound like a chorus."

An interesting add-on to that:

The extent of pluralistic ignorance (or of the false-consensus effect) can be quite striking: In Australia, people with particularly negative attitudes toward Aboriginal Australians or asylum seekers have been found to overestimate public support for their attitudes by 67% and 80%, respectively (Pedersen, Griffiths, & Watt, 2008). Specifically, although only 1.8% of people in a sample of Australians were found to hold strongly negative attitudes toward Aboriginals, those few individuals thought that 69% of all Australians (and 79% of their friends) shared their fringe beliefs. This represents an extreme case of the false-consensus effect.

Very striking. This might explain why creationists often suggest that "many scientists" are abandoning evolution.

Right, so on to "correcting misinformation". Multiple studies were done on neutral events (random building burns down, black smoke caused by improperly stored oil paints and gas cylinders) followed by a retraction in one group (there were no oil paints/gas cylinders) and no retraction in the control group. Depending on the study, either half of the people correct themselves or none at all.
I think that claim is properly outrageous, even though Lewandowsky et al. cite sixteen (16) different studies that did just that, so it evidently is true. Here's another quote, just to show just how crazy our mind is:

More recent studies (Seifert, 2002) have examined whether clarifying the correction (minimizing misunderstanding) might reduce the continued influence effect. In these studies, the correction was thus strengthened to include the phrase "paint and gas were never on the premises." Results showed that this enhanced negation of the presence of flammable materials backfired, making people even more likely to rely on the misinformation in their responses.

On to the mental models: One can be summed up with "people want to have some explanation, no matter how false, rather than none at all". That doesn't explain why people stick to misinformation even after that has been corrected. A second one could be described as "both the information (Info + NOT) and the misinformation (Info) light up and you may forget about the NOT tag." This is supported by findings that positive correction (Jim is tidy) works better than negative correction (Jim is not messy). A third one suggests that people may not like to be told what to think by an authority person, which I think conflicts with what was said above about the "Doctor this" and "Ph.D that".

Right, now on to what may actually help people be corrected:

To date, only three factors have been identified that can increase the effectiveness of retractions: (a) warnings at the time of the initial exposure to misinformation, (b) repetition of the retraction, and (c) corrections that tell an alternative story that fills the coherence gap otherwise left by the retraction.

Note that's all about retractions, something you'll have a hard time to find in creationist circles. Even so, it might explain why many creationists still stick to arguments even AiG deems wrong.
I'd say there's fat chance you'll have creationists preceding their information with warning labels à  la "attention, this might turn out to be wrong". Interestingly, both b) and c) are already practised from the evolution side of the "argument", but then again creationists routinely get... "vaccinated" against that, so it shouldn't be a great surprise. Also, it should be noted that b) may prove ineffective due to "methinks doth protest too much" and the intended correction backfires, thus strengthening the misinformation.

BTW, another short quote I loved: "Warnings may induce a temporary state of skepticism, which may maximize people's ability to discriminate between true and false information. Later in this article, we return to the issue of skepticism and show how it can facilitate the detection of misinformation."

Another problem with explaining evolution and, especially, correcting creationists is that people prefer easy-to-digest information to complex one. I'll get to that later on.

Another thing we already suspected, but that we can now count as "true", is the following: (emphasis mine)

This interaction between belief and credibility judgments can lead to an epistemic circularity, whereby no opposing information is ever judged sufficiently credible to overturn dearly held prior knowledge. For example, Munro (2010) has shown that exposure to belief-threatening scientific evidence can lead people to discount the scientific method itself: People would rather believe that an issue cannot be resolved scientifically, thus discounting the evidence, than accept scientific evidence in opposition to their beliefs. Indeed, even high levels of education do not protect against the worldview-based rejection of information; for example, Hamilton (2011) showed that a higher level of education made Democrats more likely to view global warming as a threat, whereas the reverse was true for Republicans.

That's exactly what many people have been accusing creationists of for a very long time now.

Here's a graphical summary of the findings:

IMPORTANT NOTICE
Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook have condensed the whole thing into their Debunking Handbook. <-- Free PDF version!

In any case, here finally is the list of things one can and should do:
1) Identify gaps left by debunking misinformation and fill them with new and correct information. This can be especially difficult with creationists because tearing into their myths leaves such a vast hole in their knowledge but also in their emotional "knowledge". (i.e. "So I can behave like a monkey" and "I can now go and kill people")

2) Use repeated retractions, but be aware of the "overkill" or "protest too much" effect.

3) Emphasize the FACT you wish to highlight, avoid mentioning the MYTH.

4) Warn people that you are about to mention a myth.

5) Use simple and brief arguments. Use simple language and sentence structure. Use clear graphs where appropriate. Use few arguments.

6) As mentioned in 1), identify your audience's worldview. People not fixed in their views will be more receptive.

7) If your argument is worldview-threatening, try focusing on opportunities and potential benefits rather than risks and threats.

8) Make positive corrections (Jim is tidy) instead of negative ones (Jim is not messy). I have to admit, I can't think of a way to implement this into the evolution/creation debate.

9) In line with advice 5): After having used very few arguments (maximum 3!) why the myth may be/is false, give the opponent (or person to be corrected) some sources and let him/her work out a fourth counter-argument to his/her own position him/herself.

10) Although I'd refrain from this for personal/moral reasons: Attack the rational behind the misinformers' argument.

11) Use metaphors and examples that directly relate to the every-day life of the creationist. Creationists use aeroplanes and cars as examples, you can use family trees as metaphors for cladistics. (I will use one in my third post to show exactly what I mean.)

A very brief mention of an article that might be relevant: Michael Shermer (2012) has recently written an article for Scientific American. In it, he suggests that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are more prone to believe in many conspiracy theories. So if you find yourself believing in more than three (what others call) conspiracy theories: Start being skeptical immediately, you might just believe bollocks.

Further reading, recommended: (These articles sounded good from the description in Lewandowsky et al.)
Byrne, S., & Hart, P. S. (2009). The boomerang effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 220, pp. 3-37). Hoboken, NY: Routledge.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London, England: Bloomsbury.

Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574-587.

Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.


References:
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13 [3], 106-131 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018

Shermer, M., (2012) Conspiracy Contradictions: Why people who believe in one conspiracy are prone to believe others. Scientific American, Sept. 2012, P. 77

EDIT: Edited 24.09.2012, 17:43 to include suggestion 11. Everything else remains untouched.

 

[Inferno]

Above, I quoted necessary articles to show what might prohibit correction and what might aid it. In this second post, I will analyse current tools used by proponents of evolution to correct creationists and, using the reasons above, explain why they do or do not work. Furthermore, I will suggest how the tools could be changed to make them more accessible to creationists, thus aiding in battling misinformation. This second post will also include problems with the "worldview" issue addressed above. In a third post, I will use one specific problem creationists have and try my best to correct it, using the suggestions I gave above.

In the evolution vs creationism argument, a few tools are being used more often than others. I will pick out three of them and hopefully explain why they might prove less successful than we would hope. I will also suggest a possible better use for them.

Tool #1
Talk Origins: An Index To Creationist Claims
and the related
Talk Origins: Quote Mine Project

Except for the fact that it hasn't been updated since 2006, it remains a popular source for proponents of evolution.

1.1 Index to Creationist Claims
1.1.1 Pros and cons

Choosing any claim at random (in this case CB882) shows a clear structure for how the claims and their refutations are presented:
1) Claim/Myth description
2) Source for claim/myth
3) Single response or multiple responses to claim/myth, all in short format
4) Important links
5) References
6) Further reading

While TO does use the suggestions 1, 2, 8, 9 and sometimes 10, the others seem to be left out. For example:
TO highlights the myth by repeating it right in the beginning.
People are not explicitly warned that a myth is mentioned. TO's structure relies on people's knowledge to understand that "claim" = "myth".
While many arguments are kept very simple, others use "big words" that may need defining.

Arguments six and seven are mostly applicable in questions of ethics, so I have singled out two claims:
CA001 and CA001.1
In claim 001, responses 4, 6 and 7 directly attack creationism and, by extension, the worldview of the creationist.
In claim 001.1, response 3 directly attacks creationism and response 4, while I am sure that this is unintentional, seems to mock the Bible.
Both of these examples serve as a reason why creationists might fail to take TO seriously, no matter how correct it may be.

1.1.2 A possible different approach

In this section, I will explore a more creationist-friendly version. A first suggestion is the one adopted by skepticalscience.com. They have one button for basic level explanations, often one for intermediary and sometimes one for advanced. This way, you can select how advanced you are and how difficult, or rather, technical, the explanation will be. To this possibility, I would add a fourth button "information for debunkers" or something of that sort. Basically, it would give you the page just as TO is now.

As you might have noticed, I don't think that TO in its current format is a good way to convince creationists. The quoted section below is how I would structure a TO page. I will use the claim CA001.1 to build my "perfect" page.

Crime rates have been decreasing in the last two to three decades

When you look at the data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, violent crime rates have nearly halved in the last three decades and other crime has decreased as well.

However, some people try to discredit the valid science behind evolution by making it seem as if acceptance of evolution makes you lawless. This is done despite the statistics and contrary to all evidence.

Warning! The following is the myth made up by people to discredit evolution.

For example, the Living World Bible Church suggests that acceptance of evolution means you have to disbelieve in God, which would result in less morality.

This is wrong for two reasons:
Many scientists such as Kenneth Miller and Robert T. Bakker are Bible-believing Christians and also proponents of evolution. You can accept evolution and believe in God without any problems.
Second, atheists are just as moral as believers, as Preacher X said: BlaBla

This is one possible way to produce a better tool for correcting creationists.
1) The myth is not mentioned in the title any more, but the fact is clearly conveyed. This reduces the "familiarity backfire effect".
2) There are only three rebuttals offered to the myth, all in fairly simple language and using short sentences. This reduces the "overkill backfire effect".
3) A warning is issued for the myth, increasing skepticism in the reader.
4) An alternative account is proposed (Evolution + Belief) and the worldview/identity of the reader (creationist) is reaffirmed. This reduces the "worldview backfire effect".

The above might constitute the "basic" tab, with more rebuttals and better information available in the intermediary and advanced tabs. Intermediary may include a "further reading" link, that helps the reader work out an additional counter-argument on their own.

1.1.3 What might TO be used for?

In its current form, TO is not suitable to correct creationists. It isn't aesthetically pleasing and it may increase both the "overkill backfire effect" as well as the "familiarity backfire effect".
That being said, TO is an excellent tool for proponents of evolution to look up claims and find resources that will help them answer creationist questions/claims. It should be used as just that: A tool to look up information, not to send creationists and have them read it.

If TO were to be updated and modified as I have suggested above, or if a new website citing the information from TO were to be made, creationists could be more easily corrected.

1.2 The quote mine project
1.2.1 Pros and cons

Choosing a few quotes at random (Quotes #18, #41 and #76) shows a sort-of structure:
1) False quote
2) Establishment of context or explanation of intent
3) Complete quote

There is little good to be said about the Quote Mine Project (QMP) at this point, except that it does not, by virtue of its content, attack worldviews.
The false quotes are repeated (familiarity backfire effect), the retorts are too long and too full of technical terms (overkill backfire effect) and just generally not appealing.

The only positive aspect I can find is that the quotes are supplied.

1.2.2 A possible different approach

I will leave this open for now because I can't (yet) think of a good way to present the quotes. I would like to say though that they are (once again) an absolutely perfect tool for people who want to look up a quote, i.e. proponents of evolution, but a creationist will require further explanation and exposing him/her to the false quote might lead to backfires...

I'll update this part as soon as a my light-bulb goes "bing".

Tool #2
Various videos on YouTube

There are a wide variety of videos on YouTube that a proponent of evolution might link to. Every producer uses different ways of presenting him/herself, so I'll have to fixate on one user. Because I admire his work so much, this user is AronRa.

To use but one example: There is a part in his 10th FFoC where, in the span of 45 seconds (08:03-08:48) he speaks a total of 125 words (Word-count), of which at least 1/5th can be described as difficult. (To the point where I have to look them up, too.)
Now of course one might rightly argue that that's an extreme example, but the point is still valid: Aron's videos are very technical, fast-paced and with 10min each (FFoC, not looking at the others right now) quite long. All of them have the myth in their sub-title (e.g. 1st FFoC: evolution = atheism), every rebuttal cites at least four or five counters, many of the videos directly attack (or seemingly attack) the creationist worldview and except for a few videos, they're extremely sparsely sourced. Additionally, many of them include clips/tables/pictures that are not integral to the message. It would be interesting to do an analysis of all the pictures and clips in just one video and assess whether they're really needed or just add to the distraction.

That's not to take anything away from them, they're excellent videos and one of the prime reasons why I am so engaged in this debate. As you may know I met Aron in Ireland a bit over a year ago and we go on well, so I'm definitely not trying to slag him off or anything. I'm just trying to explain why creationists might not be corrected or won over by the videos. But that is something we (and that includes me, too) will have to realize: Aron's videos are excellent tools for us, that is to say people who already know a bit about evolution and related fields, but they're poor tools to convince or correct a creationist.

That might seem strange, because they were done with that explicit purpose in mind. It might even be that there are some creationists who are won over by this presentation style, but I think that the numbers could be vastly greater.

So what alternative am I proposing? Well this is really tricky, because I suck at making videos, so I can't just whip one up. I will however provide some pointers:
1) Make short videos. Minutephysics makes videos that are mostly between 1 and 2 min long. A very quick check shows an average length of 1:30. I think that may be just good enough for a subject that's unchallenged (physics), but it seems too short for evolution. I would therefore impose a maximum time of 5min on videos that are aimed at creationists.

2) Include a maximum of 5 graphics or pictures that are absolutely relevant. Use the pictures you're showing, don't have unrelated pictures in the background while you're hammering us with spoken information. In an ideal setting (classroom), I'd let the picture or graphic sit for a minute before talking about it, but we obviously don't have the luxury of doing that in this environment.

3) When talking about the mechanisms of evolution, include a short clip that shows that specific mechanism and don't talk while it plays. An example would be the (too long and unfocused) video Evolution for ID-iots by Thunderf00t. If you could condense this message into a short clip (30sec), then you could talk, show it and continue talking.

4) When talking, use the same suggestions given for a written text. Additionally, highlight the main points by putting them up on the screen. Preferably 5-6 words per 30sec of talking.

So now that I've criticized Aron's videos, ultimately across the board, can I find some redeeming features in them?
Yes, absolutely!
For example, his video "Turns out we DID come from monkeys!" is surely one of my favourite videos of his, bested only by "An archaeological moment in time" and possibly the "falsifying phylogeny" series. The title is already a good one, it sends a positive message and doesn't reaffirm a previously held belief.
In this video, Aron also makes excellent use of diagrams (for example just before the 5min marker) and in some cases also simplifies his argument well enough.
That being said, the part starting at 07:10 is possibly the worst you can do. Aron's talking, there are pictures AND there's text. Only when you're extremely concentrated can you follow all three lines of information.
The lizard/snake picture at the 3min marker is again an excellent picture, but it is drowned in the wealth of other pictures used. Singling out such pictures (relevant ones) is key to making an easy-to-understand video.
And in the 10th FFoC, at around 00:35, Aron uses an excellent video showing types of horizontal gene transfer.

I think these are enough suggestions for now, but I would like to add one more, one that I'm actually about to try. Use the presentation tool Prezi. With it, you can include pictures and videos, and you can include words at the correct time. I think that a video made with Prezi has the potential of being an easy-to-understand and aesthetically pleasing video.

Tool #3

Sadly, the only two books I would have to criticize are "The Extended Phenotype" and "The Selfish Gene". I don't think they belong in this category, so I will suspend judgement until I am back home. (So basically come February...)

That being said, I doubt that books are useful for creationists, because they are, by their very design and nature, not meant for such a thing. I would point out that books are once again excellent tools for those who need no more convincing and just want to learn more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I said at the beginning of this post that I would address one other subject: Worldview.

Those of you who have been following my debate with TruthIsLife7/dotoree will notice that his favourite subject was that of worldviews. He couldn't accept that my worldview was not the one he erroneously assigned to me and I wouldn't let him Strawman what I believed, so he threw one tamper-tantrum after the other.

On the other side of the spectrum, that is to say the creationists side, we have "news" like this. It's a 2007 Gallup poll, fairly uninteresting in my opinion except for one question: "(Asked of those who do not believe in evolution) What is the most important reason why you would say you do not believe in evolution? [OPEN-ENDED]"

In her talk Climate change, evolution education under attack, Eugenie Scott summarized the results into a graphic. (Click the link, I've copied it at the correct time.) NCSE's interpretation of the results is that at least 76% of the opposition to evolution is purely (or rather, primarily) religious. Eugenie goes on to say that probably most of the 14% "it's due to science"-people just want to hide their religious convictions or have been sufficiently duped (I agree with her) and that of the remaining 10%, a further half are dishonest. (Well, that's my interpretation.) After all, there has to be a reason why you oppose something, so "no reason" is plain and stupid. Or dishonest.

Now sadly, Eugenie doesn't give suggestions as to how this "Ideological pillar" can be successfully attacked or undermined, she "just" goes on her usual explanatory rant of what ID and "creation science" is.

But we've just seen, and I think we all agree, that this worldview is fundamental in the opposition to evolution and correction of their mistakes. So we must think of some effective way to either:
a) challenge the worldview itself
or
b) correct while reaffirming the worldview.

I have problems with both of those, so I'll try to lay them out briefly:
The problem with the first suggestion is that it would seemingly give credence to creationist rhetoric like "evolution is atheistic". This would even work if the suggested worldview were merely a moderate Christian (or otherwise religious) worldview. So if the core of the worldview were to be challenged, it would have to be replaced by a view that's just as fundamentalist as the creationist view but which allows for evolution. I think there is such a view, but I wouldn't like it.

The second suggestion is even worse, because I don't believe that it is logically possible to be a Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian while accepting evolution. At least, it should not be. I've never delved into Robbert T. Bakker's views on the Bible, but I'm fairly sure I would be appalled by it. (So I choose to not read about his views.) Affirmation of the worldview while correcting about creationism could lead to a worldview the way I imagine Bob Bakker holds.
That at least would get us somewhere (namely acceptance of evolution) but I think it would miss the bigger ideological picture.

The question then is really: Is it possible to make this purely about the science and completely exclude any challenge to the worldview of the creationist? Apart from my belief that even if it were possible it should not be done, I don't believe that it can be done.
Remember how most creationists are indoctrinated to believe that if you take away the literal meaning of merely one sentence of the Bible, the whole thing breaks down!

This is exemplified in this comic by AiG:

I can't read that bit right at the end (is it 2 Timothy 3:16?), but the message is fairly clear: Take away one part of the Bible's literal meaning and nothing is literal any more. Take away one part of the Bible and nothing remains.

That's why I doubt that worldview and corrections about evolution can be separated. Not because there is an inherent problem, but because creationists have been indoctrinated to believe that there is one.

It would be up to preachers to find an alternate version for their beliefs, but I want to suggest one, just to show that I gave this subject a bit of thought. I know that technically this shouldn't be here, but whatever...
Evolution can be seen as true, but, to uphold the old view of enmity, with our heritage as something we have to escape. The story of "the fall" could be a fall from true paradise (metaphysical place) and we humans have to reach a final goal in our evolution and in our behaviour, to reach what we once had. (Compatible with apotheosis)

Note that I'd object to that, because there would be a goal assigned to evolution, which by definition has no goal. My intent is to show how incredibly difficult it is to come up with an alternative version that doesn't threaten a creationists worldview.

I hope this is enough food-for-thought, my next post on this matter will take a bit longer because a friend is coming to visit.
By the way, I'm slightly disappointed in how little reaction (1 PM) this has caused.

 

[Inferno]

Little FYI and "what to expect":
I'm currently in the process of reviewing about a hundred articles on science communication and the public understanding of science, so I hope to draw some insight from that.

Also two funny stories from my course:
My Professor (Diane Pecorari) told us that in her first ever paper, the numbers got jumbled. Not a small mistake mind you, but a glaring, obvious, big mistake. If you'd have taken the values in the table presented, it would have completely contradicted everything she said in the paper. Want to take a guess how many people caught up on that? Not one.
Now either they all understood what the mistake was or... (and that's part of my second story) they never checked the numbers and just assumed the researchers were correct, reading only the results and conclusion section to see what they could use, but not to check it. That, at least to me, is a horrifying thought.

Second story...
We were reviewing three papers on different topics of language learning (citations below) and our task for every week was to read the next session, e.g. the methodology section for all papers or the results section for all papers. (This is because my fellow students aren't as advanced as I am when it comes to this subject, but they're far better at morphology and the like.)
In any case, upon reading the third paper my bullshit bells started to ring. I'm not one to ignore bells going off, so I plotted the results on three different graphs (very easy, even I can do that) and found that the results don't match up with what the authors suggest. After we discussed what the paper said in class, I went up and suggested that the paper was wrong or at least that the findings were inconclusive. (I'll not reveal why I thought that, anyone who might want to read the paper should reach a conclusion of their own, one way or the other.)
After I did that, Prof. Pecorari first thought she could explain the discrepancies but then noticed something of her own. (Again, not telling.) End result: She's now contacting a friend of hers to see if I'm on to something.
^
I
One of the few times I'm proud of myself.


Pecorari, D., Shaw, P., Malmstrà¶m, H., & Irvine, A. (2011) English Textbooks In Parallel-Language Tertiary Education. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 313-333

Konstantakis, N. & Alesiou, T. (2012) Vocabulary In Greek Young Learners' English As A Foreign Language Course Books. The Language Learning Journal, 40 [1], 35-45

de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011) Fluency Training In The ESL Classroom: An Experimental Study Of Fluency Development And Proceduralization. Language Learning, 61 [2], 533-568

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Very good points all round, Inferno.

I agree with your general point about the problem with debating creationists being that your not just trying to correct one point, but their whole world-view.

This comes back to the "Tortucan" concept of James Downard. [See also the three-part video - part 1 of 3 is here]

I see it as similar to a jigsaw puzzle.

Each individual is putting together their own jigsaw puzzle of knowledge, based on education, life experience, etc.

Sometimes, a individual may get a part of their puzzle wrong - fitting pieces together which don't really fit. When they add another piece to this part of the puzzle, it "fits" because "it makes sense" - not because it's true (actually is in the right place).

When someone else tries to point out that it doesn't, they're not just trying to correct that one piece - but the whole section that's wrong, although they don't know that or what they're truly up against.

Kindest regards,

James