Advice for Debating Evolutionists on the Net
(This was originally a post I made to CRSnet, 12/96.) [Brackets] indicate material not in the CRSnet post.
Regarding debating evolutionists, I use the following tactical model (with minor adaptations as needed). Alas, I don't have tremendous experience with it yet, but you may find it useful. The model is designed for [1-on-1] internet exchanges, not face-to-face or other encounters. Apologies for the length, I hope you find this good reading though.
First Tip: Stay away, repeat, STAY AWAY from sensationalistic claims. This is especially true when dealing with someone who you suspect has above average education and intelligence (which includes the vast majority on the net). I am tired of lay creationists who put creationism on the same level as alien abductions through their own choice of apologetics topics. Look at your own arguments critically. Are they really well documented? Do you understand them yourself? What rebuttals may be expected?
I'm going to puke the next time I meet a creationist who excitedly says "did you hear about those footprints down at Paluxy, Texas?" I don't even care if it turns out to be a valid evidence in the long run or not. The fact is that many evolutionists have been "vaccinated" against creationists and trained to respond in knee-jerk fashion to certain topics: Paluxy footprints, lightspeed decay, Barnes (NOT Humphreys) magnetic decay model, etc. Avoid these like the plague! Use better established (and for the innoculated evolutionist, more novel) arguments. If you read creationist literature you will find no lack of them. That of course is key: don't argue in a state of ignorance. I've read around three hundred books on origins, several thousand articles and probably ten thousand or more e-mails on this topic in the last five years and am really just scratching the surface.
1. First contact. This can be from either side. I may be contacting someone (a letter to the editor or a web site author, for example) or someone may be responding to something on my web site. Tactical style: As gentle and humble as possible. In posing or responding to questions I always acknowledge my ignorance. I don't rant about evolutionists (you will never ever convert a single evolutionist by insisting they are all, or even mostly, jerks).
I *DO* ask questions. YOU CONTROL THE TERMS OF A DEBATE BY ASKING YOUR OPPONENT QUESTIONS. Never forget this (salesmen do this all the time, at least the pros do.) The questions are carefully presented. All information is documented. I reread everything before sending it. If possible I delay a day to "cool down" if I was angered for the opponents post.
I don't ignore their questions, though I may be brief. I generally don't let on how much I may know in this first round, though the information I give is accurate as far as it goes. Remember, the object is to convert them, NOT "win" an argument. If your ego takes a beating but they are budged from their position, we are winning. If I am proved wrong on something I candidly admit it. Always question the basis for your opponents claims - what are their sources, their references?
Special Tactic: I will frequently leave "holes" in my initial post, particularly to hide the level of knowledge I may have on a subject. On the subject of magnetic fields, for example, I may mention magnetic decay as an argument for a young earth just to see what response I get. I will not go into detail, try to refute every counterargument before it is presented, or give detailed references.
The response I get will tell me loads about the respondent. Are they ignorant of the subject and intrigued? Or dismissive? Do they brush it off, "I've heard that before." Do they follow the talk.origins script in response like a good little evolutionist? By doing this with several items by Round II I have a pretty good feel for my opponent and where they are coming from.
Round II
What happens in the second round depends on their response. If it is friendly, I will continue to be quite friendly and polite and the dialogue can continue indefinitely. I will continue to probe with questions, and go into greater detail answering questions. IMPORTANT: I do not ask endless lists of questions. Better to stump them with a handful and keep forcing the issue than allow them to dance around. Make them think.
If you are sufficiently skilled, I would also strongly suggest you stick to topics THEY are familiar with. To a large degree a biologist is just as ignorant about geology as the mechanic down the street. If you dodge the issues they want to discuss and insist on making claims where they have no knowledge they will be skeptical and probably won't be moved. This is just a guide, there are exceptions (especially if _they_ first mention an outside subject).
At the same time, you obviously have to be VERY cautious about claims you make in their field. Prepare to admit mistakes as necessary. I use situations like this as valuable learning experiences, when I do deal with a bonafide expert in a given area (unfortunately this is rare :-)
Let them come to their own conclusions, don't tell them "this has to be true" or "there is only one conclusion" because there almost never is. Again, use questions to direct the conversation. And don't forget references. Don't let them throw up irrational excuses or prejudices as a cover for not thinking things through. And force them to recognize the consequences of their own position. (For example, you can hammer an animal rights activist who opposes "cruelty to animals" if they are an evolutionist.) See the paper I mentioned at the start of this message for more on this subject.
If the respondent is hostile but not what I call "scripted/brainless" in their response, you can still try for a couple more rounds. Assuming you posed nasty problems for him in Round I (you DID start with good arguments, right?) you should repeat them and demand a response. Don't lose your cool, though you should be firm, not wimpy, in your responses. Most people in this group are just honestly confused, they have been totally lied to about creationists by their information sources and a firm, steady, intelligent set of responses can really shake them up even if they won't admit it.
Watch for signs that they are just blindly relying on someone else's authority however, rather than thinking for themselves. Ask the same questions of their arguments you should be asking of your own. Do they understand their own arguments? What are their sources? With experience you can tell a lot about them if you learn to spot the clues. I once had a "Christian" who quoted only Prometheus Press books for example. This is a leading atheist/humanist book publisher. This person is either confused and naive, letting pretty much anything (as long as the secular world says it is OK) pour into their brain, or dishonest in their claims of religion. (Kleem, the initials of this particular fellow are J.M. - sound familiar?)
If they are are totally hostile and seem to be "talk.origins zombie" know-nothings who flat out aren't interested in learning and distort the creationist position, Round II is the last contact I'll have with them. J.M. falls into that category. These types typically claim to have read various creationist material (I often inquire as to specific examples they have read), but are seriously ignorant of the contents of these books, don't grasp or misrepresent what they say, and don't respond to correction. (Maybe skimming a few pages with a totally closed mind counts as reading it, in their opinion?!)
If this is the case, Round II is a major "blitzkrieg" response. I go into deep detail and references about the topics brought up by either party and any rebuttals I may anticipate. I clearly show where they are wrong. By the way, I try to store all my mail so I can go back later if they "forgot" something in a later contact with myself or another creationist.
I don't waste my time after this. In the case of J.M., I got behind on my mail and ended up not even bothering to read his response. This is probably where I am most vulnerable to criticism, but I believe that at this point it is a waste of time and an emotional abuse of myself to continue (anti-creationists are not known for jovial friendliness). People in this case are generally very dogmatic, very ignorant beyond a scripted set of FAQ's they lean on as their "bible" and are true "soldiers" for evolution. In short, exactly the kind of religious nuts they would like the world to believe creationists are.
Return
to Creation Science Issues