Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats

I will address my opponent's points. "Scientists and creationists are not even remotely on the same page. They have been debating for centuries to no avail. " Creationists and scientists may not be on the same page, but creationists are selling their own pages concerning science; they have encroached on the scientists' position. If a creationist wants to maintain that all physical evidence does support the scientific consensus but evidence will not change their faith in a selective interpretation of Genesis, then science can provide nothing for them and their view falls outside of the philosophy of science; however, YECs maintain scientific evidence does support their position and the scientific consensus is wrong and deceitful. Maintaining such a position puts the YEC in the field of pseudoscience and outside the realm of mere religion. Science must address pseudoscience in every form. Declaring a pseudoscientific belief as a religion does not change the necessity to address it. On the contrary, religious dogma makes the situation dire. As for the contention that each has been debating for centuries to no avail; I must disagree. Although the YECs' defense of the church's view of the heliocentric universe requires some constructive historical revisions, they generally agree the earth circles the sun, agree the earth is not flat, and species are not fixed. Dogma fell to reasoned observations and now some YECs maintain the Bible said the earth was round and though species are not fixed they fall within varying "kinds". (See Kent Hovind and Janet Porter, for two horrid examples. In addition, I hate putting quotation marks around words unnecessarily, but the creationists will not define "kinds" so I am stuck with the quote marks. ). I understand the YECs will incorporate science into their selective reading of the Bible and dilute the science to a degree, but they accept some scientific hypotheses and are incorporating them into their readings. This fact shows improvement between the two sides, albeit small improvement. This agreement is contradictory to the claim that it, the debate, as come to no avail. "The views of YEC are taken from the Bible. " Correct, I have no contention with this statement as it is fact. I will not debate the selective reading of scripture necessary to maintain a YEC view as that is not the topic of this debate. I agree with my opponent on this point. "The Bible is not about how old the Earth is. " I agree, but the YECs do not. Displacing the selective interpretation of Genesis with allegory is tantamount to heresy. This position is one of the strongest arguments they have in respect to influence, and they use this argument when speaking to churches worldwide. The audience for these events does not exist in a vacuum. The members of these churches vote and affect policy from school boards on up to national elections. Although we can agree that the Bible is not about the age of the earth; their captive audience is convinced otherwise by strong rhetorical speeches and debates from the YEC movement. (see Ken Ham, Dr. Kurt Wise for example) "So the first question is: Who cares? So what? Where are you going with this? " This statement posits three questions, not one. The first: Who cares? I do, and I care because pseudoscience supported by political, cultural, and religious dogma is dangerous. So what? Scientific theories can emerge from unlikely sources. Amateurs can, and have, presented great ideas. We cannot afford to dismiss the number of citizens swayed by pseudoscience in the search for the best possible explanation of some aspect of the natural world. I am not willing to write off Christians, fundamentalists or otherwise. Smart people fall for nonsense sometimes and we cannot afford for children or adults to remain uniformed; science is too important. I care because the next great scientist may be sitting in the audience listening to nonsense and believing it as no one has shown her otherwise. Where are you going with this? Please see the recent reports on the Texas Board of Education's treatment of evolution to see where the YECs are going with this subject. The YECs are trying to promote a world view that rejects intellectualism, truth outside of strict religious adherence, and secularism as a whole. Science is only one of the victims. YECs want to vilify science and attacks on Darwin, Lyell, Haeckel, etc. serve as good examples. (My opponent is informed on this debate as shown from his previous debates and his reasoned response here, and I do not list all the articles from YECs concerning these scientists as the vilification of each is abundant. I will provide the links if necessary, but I think my opponent will agree each has been treated with distain from the YEC community. ) "Both the religious people and the scientific people are scratching their heads wondering exactly that. That's why it is puzzling how YEC can be doing well in debates when they are not even allowed into the debating hall, where the first requirement is value. In debating terms, YEC simply has no value. This is not even addressing its lack of scientific merit. " My opponent is basing his con position, at this point, on the contention that YEC has no value in debating terms. I concede the fact that my learned opponent is much more knowledgeable on the terms used in a Lincoln/Douglas debate than I. I reviewed the source my opponent provided and decided to place his contention of no value in a light most favorable to him. Even if I agree the YEC position has no value in debate terms, my position on the resolution does not change as the YEC position poses problems outside of debate terms. The danger posed to science by YECs is best quantified in influence, not debate terms. I am in no way claiming the value definition in the LD debate format is arbitrary, but in this debate influence is more important (as it affects policy for education); therefore, maintaining the position that scientists should not debate the YECs in a public format due to the lack of value, in debate terms, of their position must fall to the undue influence YECs have on the future of science in relation to policy and education. My position fails if YECs do not have influence on policy decisions. The numerous pieces of legislation concerning evolution in state congresses says they do. . http://www.google.com... In addition to the actions of the Dover, PA school board. . http://ncseweb.org... And the Texas Board of Education. . http://www.youtube.com... When I used the term live debate, I did not necessarily mean a LD debate, specifically. I used the term more loosely in the resolution. My lack of a concise definition of the term "debate" in the resolution should count against me and not my opponent. If my opponent took the con position due to my lack of definition, this should also count against me. By "debate" I mean a confrontation involving a pro and con of the resolution provided and each presenting their respective sides and the evidence supporting each position. I will accept that by "debate" I meant "confrontation" and that confrontation needs to take place in a live format in front of church groups/ civic forums/ and college campuses. If my opponent agrees with the resolution now, then I will withdraw from the debate with a lesson learned to clarify better. If my opponent still maintains that scientists should not debate YECs in any sense - then I will hold my position and state: Regardless of the value of the YEC position in debate terms, scientists must debate them due to the influence they (YECs) have on policy.