Not. Bombast, acrimony and ridicule never changed anyone’s mind. You are fantasizing.
I don’t think ridicule has the effect you think it does. Personally when I see someone use this approach I tend to dismiss them as someone who can’t defend their ideas with good arguments.
More concretely, I’m part of what would be considered a fairly conservative, even fundamentalist YEC culture. What I’ve seen within this context is that ridicule is perceived as persecution, and drives people to withdraw from society in many ways. This leads to isolated sub culture, where there is fear and distrust of the rest of society. This leads to things like home schooling (which is not a problem in and of itself) where alternative “science” is taught including a distrust of science and scientists. This in turns extends far beyond the question of evolution, but to things like acceptance of vaccinations and climate change.
I think we are much further ahead to affirm people’s value, and engage them, while presenting factual information that challenges their ideas.
1 Like
I haven’t said it does. Please try understand my position if you intend to argue against it.
Based on counter arguments? How do you refute a claim? Do you have experimental evidence that complex sequences can be produced by trial and error?
Or is your argument from self assigned authority?
Good. That would be my objective, so you are admitting my suggested approach works.
It’s a shame if they’re homeschooling their kids to be ignorant of science. But better that than that they impose this on everyone’s kids thru the public education system, as is their objective.
1 Like
How to say this graciously… Your unpleasant verbiage and very presence here was useless in influencing anyone.
And yet nicey-nice approach hasn’t convinced you to drop creationism. Why is that?
1 Like
You haven’t kept up on your reading:
Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism
You really deserve a prize for your industrial strength projection.
1 Like
(I even gave a concrete example of God’s providence working on the molecular scale.)
The evidence your approach of ridicule and disrespect not being very effective is in this thread. Myself and another here have changed our views on Evolution because of the respectful approach and dialogue of Christian and non Christian scientists on this forum who support Evolution. This happened in a short amount of time. Compare this with the one result you stated happened using ridicule and disrespect within a 20 year period.
1 Like
That A is true, does not mean that B is untrue.
Once again, for those not paying attention: I am not saying that a respectful approach cannot be helpful in a few isolated instances. What I am saying is that it cannot be counted upon to be the only effective approach, and a less diplomatic approach also has its place. Satire and other forms of mockery have a long and storied place in the history of rhetoric and debate.
2 Likes
I think that it is time to shut this one down. Everyone has made their points and we seem to be circling back through for a repeat. Thanks to all for sharing honestly.
3 Likes
I try to direct my ridicule at the anti-science ideas being pitched by the ID-Creationist crowd along with reasons why the woo is wrong. Of course there are hard-headed ID-Creationists who reject the scientific evidence and will just rote repeat the anti-science claims ad nauseum. Those are the people who make themselves targets for ridicule.
4 Likes
2 posts were split to a new topic: Is PS Against Using Science Arguments as Evidence for God’s Existence?
For those who were just talking about what an absolute failure the “New Atheism” has been:
2 Likes