Another surge of IDiocy in GD.

[Taxloss]

People continue treating Intelligent Design like it's science. I know the vast majority of DUers don't share that view, but it feels like it's always us atheists who have to slap it down.

Why can't the progressive Christians get a bit of collective backbone?

Here are the offending posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2973688&mesg_id=2975272

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2974847

[fshrink]

1. I stopped

going to GD for that, particularly when all the "rest" was unfolding so clearly (November/December). Those stupid posts were scoring 300+ each time, while people wanting to talk about real stuff sank to the bottom in 1 hour.

[Taxloss]

2. But we've got to challenge this stuff!

It's shit! We should confront it!

[Az]

4. Then know the battle

You are not going to convince or stop the proponents of ID. I have witnessed (and debated) them argue a point (ie 2nd law of thermodynamics) and watch them get their head handed to them on the subject. As soon as the audience changes they will bring the same argument back out again in hopes that no one knows what they are talking about.

Another tactic they use is its very easy to send a scientist into a spin. You merely have to post a series of seemingly sensible questions (perhaps with some strawmen built in). This will send the scientist on a long journey tracking down answers to all the issues (often quite involved). All the while the IDer goes off in a different direction. The convoluted answer from the scientist will often leave the audience cold as it does not answer in terms they understand or want. The scientist then has to play catchup again while the IDer rushes off in another direction.

When facing an IDer you have to control the debate and know your audience. You are not going to convince them. Instead you are going to have to win the audience over. Either communicate at their level or make the IDer expose themself as the unappealing position. Show that they have no answer or no means to derive their intelligent impetus other than their insistance.

[Taxloss]

5. Well, I'm involved in both threads, and I don't intend to let go.

These people are being "useful idiots" and need to be told as such.

[Az]

6. They will not hear the message

But others will. That must be the target and that decides the wording you use. If you cannot silence the fanatic you turn the audience away from them. Make them the villain.

[Taxloss]

8. They are the villain!

I never insult or anything like that - I challenge the point, not the person. But these God-botherers love a fight! So they peddle their ID crap and get all defensive if someone calls them out on it. I'm sure they look ridiculous to the DU majority, but why isn't the DU majority getting involved?

[Az]

9. When you find yourself wrestling with a pig in the mud

You may be suprised to discover that the pig is enjoying themself. Most know to stay clear of pigs in mud. The trick that I use is to engage them, get their appetite ready for a full battle, make the point to the audience and then drop them. They will work themself into a frenzy and distance most from them quickly.

[Taxloss]

10. I think I might have done that with a couple of the ID-iots.

Just kept asking questions and challenging. Buy did their language turn defensive quick.

[fshrink]

14. I say: Stay the course and keep it short!

That's the best we can do (imo).

[Az]

15. Its not a bad idea to have some

dedicated to engaging these types and keeping them occupied. But its a case of picking and choosing the battles you want to fight. Due to the nature of the argument and the dedication of the opposition it can take a lot of personal resources to combat them. They can draw from every twist and misrepresentation found in history.

I am reminded of one creationist I got into a mix with that had some argument about the existance of certain geographical structures that are made by fluid pressure. He claimed that these structures could not have been made by glaciers passing over them during the ice ages and instead must have been made by the great flood. Needless to say fluid formations of geographic structures is not my area of expertise. It took quite a bit of digging but I eventually discovered that it was a long discredited theory forgotten decades ago.

If someone has the energy to engage them in continuous debate it keeps them from spreading their disinformation and psuedoscience to others. But often it is simply more efficient to just use other social tactics to take them off their game and discredit them.

[fshrink]

16. We should find a software to handle that...

It might be possible... Anyone here a programmer?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Perhaps we should be rude and authoritarian in our response

As in: "you're full of shit. You just want to institute a theocracy like Iran, only with the cross instead of a crescent. You want to brainwash people."

Well, it's THEIR tactic, and it seems to work. Attack, attack, attack. Quantity over quality. Seems to work for them.

[Taxloss]

32. The "Iran" thing really stings them.

There are plenty of historical precedents for "living by the book" - none of them are pretty.

I still think we should just remain calm and say: "But it does move."

[trotsky]

3. One of the problems with being a Christian.

You can't really ever slap down one of your "brethren" because if you're a good Christian, you're supposed to turn the other cheek and all that crap.

"Intelligent" Design is such an incredible misnomer. What's our appendix for? The only thing it does is get infected and cause death unless it's removed before it bursts. Why do animals have vestigial organs? Why do chickens have the genes for teeth tucked away in their DNA? Why do some insects have nerves that run all the way to the base of their body, then backtrack to the midsection to control their wings? What a waste of material! What poor design! We're supposed to laud the idiot that put these things together?

And yet we're supposed to accept that a master intelligence put all this together. Horse hockey.

[GOPFighter]

19. Well, maybe their God is not too bright

Appendixes, vestigal organs, useless DNA....

He/she/it is also a wimp. When I was a kid growing up in the Baptist church, their God couldn't even protect them from the commies so they had to get the U.S. government to build thousands of nuclear bombs and keep a huge standing army to protect us.

I kinda' lost respect for the dude right there.

[Taxloss]

7. They're really getting nasty.

I know it's only one or two DUers, and I don't want to alert, but they're really giving science a good slapping. It's "hard work" out there.

[Az]

11. There is a philosophical weak spot in science

Its based off the solipsistic issue. We don't know that the reality we percieve is truly reality. For all we know we may be brains in vats being fed our view of reality. We have no means of testing this currently. But the problem is that we start with a faith based position. That this experience is true. That our perceptions are not flawed.

We have to accept this flaw. Acknowledge it. Science thus is a method to explore the reality we percieve. If suddenly we are made aware of our status as a brain in a vat (or some other change of reality) we can then attempt to understand the new evidence provided to us. But till such a time we can only consider the reality we percieve.

Unfortunately due to few not recognising this flaw most take an authoratarian approach to demanding that science explains everything. It certainly might. But we cannot prove that it will. And that is where the IDers and creationists frolic and play.

[Taxloss]

12. But that's no argument for God!

I know an argument for god when I see one, and even if we are the construct of a brain in a vat, that does not mean a god exists.

"Faith-based" science is not science.

[Az]

13. They are playing God of the Gaps

Find a gap in the skeptics argument and insert god there. Of course once they do that they pull a substitute for the god of the particular doctrine they adhere to. Which is of course is not defined by the same criteria they were arguing for.

[Modem Butterfly]

17. It's enough to make this old Humanist into a misanthrope

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I live in Cobb County, GA, so I'm regularly exposed to this particular brand of idiocy. I enjoy pointing out to people that gravity is just a theory. They usually look at me and go "Wuh? Bah. Guh?" a few times before they get it together enough to back away slowly from the infidel.

Xians do the kookiest things.

[arwalden]

20. It's Frightening. Where Are All These Idiots Coming From?

And why are they coming HERE? They make me sick!

[Az]

21. A number of reasons

First off we are complex entities. Just because someone may be blind in one area does not mean they don't get other things. Thus while they may have a malformed sense of science their sense of freedom and rights may be well developed.

Secondly when you have a confrontational position you either keep it to yourself or you find those that oppose your position and try to beat it into them (or those nearby them).

Third they percieve acceptance of the dominant scientific theory as a threat to their position. It is. Domgatic religions are always threatened by individuals and systems that shine light on the truth and expose it for all to see. It eats away at their claims of accuracy. Much is made of religion and science being compatible. But this is only true if the religion is correct on its claims about reality. For science will simply plod ahead exposing truth for what it is whether the religion agrees or not.

[arwalden]

22. Hmmm.

>> Thus while they may have a malformed sense of science their sense of freedom and rights may be well developed. <<

I suppose anything is possible... but I've seen little evidence to support that statement.

>> Just because someone may be blind in one area does not mean they don't get other things. <<

You're being far too generous in your estimation of them.

[Zenlitened]

23. Well, I've put in my time.

These people are maddening. They are skilled at seeing what they want to see, ignoring what they choose not to comprehend.

I'm convinced that several of them are here only to disrupt. The others... I feel sad for them, to some extent. Disappointed. But angry, too, though I realize that's not very productive. They're a drag on our species, they really are.

It's one thing to take comfort in faith, but to deny the wisdom and effectiveness of science puts us all in danger, in the long run. We live in a time when superstition is spreading once again, and that doesn't bode well for our future. To come to a website for progressive thinkers and see this ridiculous discussion hashed out over and over and over again.. well, it's awfully discouraging.

Maybe that's their intent.

[arwalden]

24. They Are "Under-The-Radar" Disruptors

They come here to disrupt and to make liberals look like fools.

[Az]

25. Very possible

Its vital to size up an opponent before getting into it with them. Disruptor types are packing tons of ammo and are looking for a scrap. Unless you are prepared to keep fighting them until they prove themself to be fools or worse to the fence sitters they are going to benefit from the interaction. Three tactics for disruptors such as this. Send them into a tizzy and force them to discredit themself quickly. Be prepared for a long drawn out fight with lots of research necissary. Or post a singular refutation of their position (or ignore them) and leave it at that.

They gain energy from resistance.

[Zenlitened]

26. Apparently, there is no evidence of the Big Bang, either.

I don't know what to make of that one. Someone who just enjoys starting arguments?

:shrug:

[Az]

27. Ironically BB works out in their favor

It implies a moment of creation. It is also the point beyond which our science can only theorise at the moment.

There is even an argument that the BB idea was originally suggested by creationists.

This exemplifies the problem of dealing with these types. You never know what argument they are going to throw. And typically they have done none of the leg work to formulate it. They stumbled across some old argument on the net and simply cut and paste it. Then we have to reinvent the wheel in order to refute it.

[Zenlitened]

28. Well, but this one seemed to be saying...

... that there's no evidence the Big Bang occurred. No expansion of galaxies, etc.

There's a fair amount of work out there explaining the beginning of our universe scientifically, but yes, you're right, it would take a lifetime to explain it.

And at the end, they'd just say, "See? You can't prove there is NOT a creator!!"

Oy.

Interesting that none of them seem willing to take on the question of who designed the designer. Humans are so complex that someone must have designed us. Seems to me the designer must be pretty complex itself. Who designed it?

Never seem to get an answer to that one!

[Az]

29. Sure they can answer that one

But they have to violate the rule they used to leverage him in in the first place. He always existed. Skeptic/Atheist wanders off making blub blub blub noises.

[Zenlitened]

30. LOL!

:hi:

[Zenlitened]

31. Oh, and another tactic they seem to enjoy...

Characterizing your state of mind for you. I've got a poster describing for me my point of view, my interpretation of statements others have made, my emotional state, etc etc etc.

LOL! :D

(Edited to remove names)