Why Scientists Should Not Debate Creationists About Evolution

[Leonard]

Scientists should not debate creationists. Period. Creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and can't be treated as an equal, debatable “controversy”.

When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to achieve such problems. Debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.

Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus. Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

Redacted from an article that first appeared on RichardDawkins.net

[Wonky]

Scientists should not debate creationists. Period. Creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and can't be treated as an equal, debatable “controversy”.

When you accept a debate, you are accepting there is something worth debating. Political ideologies are worth debating, religion as it pertains to things like human well-being and flourishing can be worth debating, because these kinds of ideas claim to offer solutions to problems and they are debating the best way to achieve such problems. Debates about the existence of God can be fun, they are not really that meaningful, but they are a debate about ideas and beliefs and can be worth effort.

Creationism vs. evolution however is not worth debating. Why? Simple, there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a scientific fact, backed by mountains of evidence, peer-reviewed papers you could stack to the moon and an incredible scientific community consensus. Creationism is a debunked mythology that is based solely in faith. It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested.

Redacted from an article that first appeared on RichardDawkins.net

I think you "nailed it". (With the help of Richard Dawkins.
But I always wonder….
What went on JUST BEFORE the Big Bang?
I mean, something had to start it.
God?
Guess not. I'm sure science has explained that but I can hardly understand Bill Maher let alone Stephen Hawkins.
Clete will sign on and explain it.

PS: Dawkins has a new autobiography "An Appetite for Wonder" that the critics seem to like a lot. I haven't read it….waiting for the movie :