I am very, very, very restrained in how I speak to creationists. This is because when I answer questions, I do not just say whatever I feel like saying; I measure my words. I use precision. When I say a word, I will follow up by using that word consistently and in the proper context.
I maintain intellectual integrity. I have to in order to learn about science. This is a trait you must pick up if you are ever going to have any scientific literacy. This is my life, and this is what I expect to receive when I debate. This is not what I observe in many debates.
I want to analyze the above text very, very carefully. With a scalpel.But I do give the correct details of evolution. Doesn't the theory tell us that not only is a reptile-bird transformation in nature possible, but it actually happened? Isn't that what the theory entails? Certainly. Well, I "decide" not to believe it.
This is innocuous on its own. However, this is not stated fairly. Because what the poster almost always does is make wild assertions about what he thinks the theory of evolution states, and then retreats to parroting what his opponents say the theory of evolution says when challenged.But I do give the correct details of evolution.
This is not intellectual integrity.
As a general example: "Why don't we see a crocoduck in nature? After all, you believe birds come from reptiles!" This. Is. Not. A. Valid. Argument. And explaining that when people who understand evolutionary theory do not make that assertion indicates that they (the person who makes the assertion) do not understand why the assertion does not work and therefore they do not understand evolutionary theory. This is why when one makes assertions about evolutionary theory that the theory itself does not claim, WE are OBLIGATED to tell them that they do not understand evolutionary theory. WHY? Because we are obligated to have intellectual integrity.
Explaining why wild assertions about evolutionary theory are not valid criticisms of evolutionary theory is a very time-consuming task. It is also a task that has been performed countless times on this very forum, yet certain creationists show absolute immunity to change. As if imploring them for intellectual integrity draws offense.
This is after the poster demanded we predict the next "major evolutionary change." When prompted for what details we can use, or what variables we can use, the poster laughed and mocked his opponent.Doesn't the theory tell us that not only is a reptile-bird transformation in nature possible, but it actually happened?
What did the poster actually do? Let's analyze:
The poster made demands of the theory of evolution that cannot logically be made without additional information, or at least effort on his part to state his challenge clearly.
The poster then makes what is known as a "composition fallacy," effectively insinuating that because "evolutionists" cannot make absolute statements about the future of life on Earth (despite not making his challenge clear in any capacity) that the theory of evolution is not capable of being relied on for its predictive power.
The reptile-bird transition is one that is very well-documented because we look at the fossils, we observe that different morphologies exist that appear to be intermediate stages between ancient reptiles and modern birds, and we conduct experiments to see if there are possible chemical sequences that progress from one stage to the other. All of this is ignored and dismissed et al because the assertions that the theory of evolution are false do not demonstrate intellectual integrity. Rather than ask what specifically leads scientists to believe that any intermediate fossils are actually related, they make claim after claim, throwing around absolutist statements that the theory of evolution is "unscientific, illogical, impossible," and other bombastic statements that we point out are themselves unscientific. But when we do so, we are accused of insulting intelligence.The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).
I hate misrepresentations of science. I hate misrepresentations of scientific consensus. I hate misrepresentations of the scientific method. I hate, hate, hate when those who use their words precisely have their words taken and twisted, and because their words are twisted, they have to invest countless hours of effort untwisting to show what consistent, contextual meanings are intended to be inferred from their precise wording.Well, I "decide" not to believe it.
When someone misrepresents the theory of evolution, I do not care that they do not accept the theory of evolution. I have spent more time correcting non-theists on the theory of evolution than theists. I've corrected Lamarckists, Lysenkoists, pseudo-scientists and conmen who go out of their way to pick and choose bits and pieces of science that sound palatable and fit into their pre-defined worldview. I do so because I care about the representation of science in culture. My motives are entirely clear. Believe what you want, but the second you misrepresent a stated position of a scientist, or of the scientific consensus, or what the data actually shows, I will respond. Or at least I used to.
I will let my emotion bleed in, not to make an argument, but to set a backdrop for what it is about my arguments that creationists take advantage of.
I am angry. Very angry. Angry because I represent the theory of evolution to the highest standard I possibly can based on my understanding of it. I represent science as well as I possibly can to the best of my understanding. And I do so knowing that I will be taken advantage of, that questions asked of me that will be used in fallacies, out of context quotes, and ridiculous assertions that will be made because the other side knows that the consistent, intellectual integrity of secularists is one that does not allow them to readily make absolutist claims against their religion. For example: I cannot claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. This is because I have intellectual integrity and understand basic epistemology. However, some theists will jump in and make bold claims that they have absolute certainty their god exists, as if they some how have credibility. This is because they are not exercising intellectual integrity. Having to debate with these theists is impossible given the disparity in how each side conducts their arguments. And because I can never sink to their level without losing integrity, I have to consistently make arguments that are provisional and explanatory only insofar as my knowledge allows.
When I discuss the theory of evolution, I will bring up evidence. I will bring up chromosomal fusion, I will bring up endogenous retroviruses. I will bring up morphological structures that existed in the past.
Do you know what the creationist will respond with: "Is it possible that all of that is not produced via evolution, but instead by design?"
I am obligated to answer in the affirmative. I have no ability to state otherwise because that is the intellectual honest thing to do. Not because I see it as a likely option, but because to make the claim that a supernatural creation event is impossible is beyond my knowledge. There are so many ad hoc, supernaturalist claims that can be interchangeably swapped with the creationist side that dismissing any one over the other is indicative of a lack of proper methodology.
When I ask a theist if it is possible their god does not exist, I find the majority answer in the negative.
How do I debate on a forum where there is such a wild disparity in the standards and assertions made by one side?!
I have to state that it is "possible" that all evidence of evolutionary theory is actually not indicative of evolution actually occurring, because making absolutist statements is not how science progresses. Whenever I am prompted, I always do my best to make very precise claims, such as "evolutionary theory predicts this, and this is the evidence we have found." But this is ignored because the creationist has a preset goal to reach, and that is to use the secularist's own inability to make absolute claims against them.
I want to say that the evidence for evolution is so incontrovertible that there will never, ever, ever be found any evidence against it because we have a far more complete model of life's development on earth than any other model ever will. I want to say that so badly, but I can't. Not because I lack the knowledge, or the evidence. But because I have intellectual integrity.
I am tired, so very, very tired of having my integrity used as a restraining leash so that creationists can run around making any assertion they want. Why can't scientific discussions on this debate forum actually follow a scientific methodology? Why do creationists linger in the proverbial woodwork, perform guerilla tactics by attacking one component of a scientific theory, proceed to insult it without considering the context in which that scientific theory fits in our current models, and then get to make any assertion they want following shortly after? No matter how many times I report a post for not substantiating their positions, it's as if creationists on this forum have learned how to toe the line in such a way they can get away with doing exactly what they should not be doing.
What do I want to see in a scientific post? I want to see intellectual integrity. What do I mean when I say that? An example:
A: "Evolutionary theory predicts that the distribution of endogenous retroviruses will follow a nested hierarchy in accordance with our current model for the tree of life."
B: "Is it possible endogenous retroviruses were put there by design, and not by inheritance from a progenitor?"
A: "Technically yes, however the theory of evolution's prediction is still verified, and as such we can use the theory of evolution to predict future instances of endogenous retroviruses we have not discovered yet. Do you have any methods or theories that offer any predictive power regarding how we should expect to see biodiversity in nature?"
B: "I see genetic similarity as evidence of creation by a singular source. Therefore similar organisms will have similar distributions of genetic anomalies. However, the model we use does not adequately anticipate the distribution of endogenous retroviruses (without using secular models of life's distribution) because we do not presume relatedness of separate species using a common ancestor."
The above is an exchange I have absolutely no issue with. I would never dream of faulting either position. Ever.
And I know, I just know, that some creationists will come in and claim they have entirely stayed within reasonable boundaries. No matter how much I may ask for introspection or analytical study, I will always be met with absolutist statements of my bias, of my hypocrisy, of my inability to represent my opponent fairly.
But I try far, far harder than I should have to on this forum. And I don't see the same exercised for me.
I just want my intellectual integrity to be respected. I want my words to be taken as they are actually stated. I want to defend positions I make, not strawman representations of science my opponents arrogantly assume I'm making.
I'm so tired. I am 1,000 posts in, but I have been routinely shown that my effort to show evidence is ignored in favor of absolutist claims, scorched earth policies that attempt to equivocate all secular science with "nonsense," and "impossible" scenarios. All in an attempt to justify belief in a supernatural creator.
I don't think I can do this anymore.
