Acme

I think the key is how we phrase our criticism or ridicule. Now, I'm not entirely a fan of ridicule; I understand it's a method that people use and I am not against it personally (except that it depends *where* you do it, as in some places it is inappropriate, or against the rules, etc) but it's something that I, personally, don't relate to. It isn't just about ridiculing religion, by the way. I'm not too fond of most other ridicule; I can find it funny, but it tends to bug me a bit.

Then again, that's a personal preference.

 

That said, I think there's a huge difference in how we phrase things.

 

For example:

• The idea that the Earth is 4000 years old is stupid.

  (ridiculing the idea)

• You're stupid if you believe the Earth is 4000 years old.

  (ridiculing the person)

These two are radically different, and while the first is somewhat accepted, I don't quite see how the second would gain any sort of traction with anyone, other than offending them, driving them to be defensive and by that getting them to competely block any other claim that might come up. It's unnecessarily personal.

 

 

It's not really necessary to be personal. It's enough to criticize (or, if we must, ridicule) ideas, not people. We don't know what led a specific person to hold a certain belief, so ridiculing the person is also short sighted in my opinion. They may be ignorant not by their own fault, or brainwashed.

 

 

My personal problem with most ridicule is that it tends to stop there -- at ridicule. It might be funny, but it isn't really helpful, not just to the person participating, but also to random observers that listen- or read-in. "This idea is stupid" is not helpful. "This idea is stupid *BECAUSE*..." is a little better. "This idea doesn't work because..." is even better, in my opinion.

 

I understand there may be cases where ridicule can convince people. I personally don't like it, it makes me feel like a cop-out, as if we don't have enough patience to not let emotions and frustration control debates that are, after all, fact-based.

 

I think I'm in Love!

To be clear, I'm not married to ridicule; we just have an occasional fling. Even then I don't go much for back-seat stuff but rather prefer wine, low lights, and Bolero.

I took up the argument largely on Chadn's broad-brush declaration that ridicule never works and have continued in that only insofar as answering his and other challenges.

That you say you aren't "entirely" a fan and find -some- ridicule funny is the chord I mean to strike. Even if after the impulsive chortle you feel some chagrin, the initial reaction is rather more honest in my opinion. As to patience, I like the leisure the forum posting communication allows and strive to be patient in crafting suitable replies whether employing ridicule or some other style. While I have been supporting ridicule here, I have actually employed it very little. Well, I did call names when I said anyone who disagreed with me was a poopy-head, but clearly -I hope- I was being facetious.

As to the topic of the thread it seems the majority of respondents, if not readers, agree that Moontanman's friend took a ridiculous stance and if we have given him enough choices as to "what to do about it" then our work here is done.

I remain your adoring servant,

Acme

This point seems worth revisiting.

 

Is it possible to consider actual creationist ideas and creationism in general carefully, soberly, and explicitly, without appearing to most creationists to be ridiculing them personally?

That's a question each creationist would have to answer personally. Let's carefully, soberly, and explicitly invite them to. Care to respond Mr./Ms. creationist?

Peel the bark from some twigs, cut it into strips, and use it to lash together your twig-logs. You could also weave the strips into mats, baskets, and other such items as the Iroquois made and used.

OK. More specific:

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

If you can provide a link to the article the table appears in, I would like to see it in context.

Regardless, the table throws no light on Moontan's question in the OP, "How do you deal with people like this?". I understand you don't think ridicule works and that you can't or won't support that thinking with any kind of reference. Perhaps you can or will weigh in on what you do think works; supporting references would be nice.

Or is it you think creationism is A'OK? If so then by all means say so and give your supporting argument(s).

That approach might work If the majority consensus is disposed against that ideal/belief ...I think you are blowing into the wind.

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/study-24-of-americans-now-either-atheist-agnostic-or-deist/

I realize you think that, but you haven't made the slightest effort/advance to support it. As I said to Chadn, if you want to discount my reference regarding ridicule as an effective tool/weapon then you need to address specifics in that reference.

As to the table, as Mooeypoo pointed out this thread is not about god belief but about creationist belief vs. reality. I'd also note that IIRC Chadn said -from his personal experience- that many/most Christians he has knowledge of are not and/or do not support creationists.

I'm almost certain the effectiveness of ridicule as a tactic for effective argumentation was not the original topic of this thread.

I am equally certain that neither is pointing that out. I at least have made a sincere effort to tie my responses to the specifics that Moontan laid out in the opening post and I have also introduced an historical perspective/argument on creationism vs. reality.

I never said it was so because "I say so". I actually listed off many reasons why this approach is bad and does not work, so I have presented a logical argument that can be evaluated on its own right and "not because I say so. If you are going to accuse me of a fallacy, make sure its relevant first. Secondly, just because you can post a reference, doesn't make your argument less fallacious. You are still resorting to an appeal to tradition.

Perhaps you can review your arguments/reasons? I don't recall anything other than anecdotes from your personal experience. If you mean to discount my reference -which is contemporary- then you need to address specifics in it that you discount. Then too, I reiterate that you et all have no basis to judge the effectiveness of ridicule on those who do not report on their response.

While I don't discount that ridicule may not be effective for changing the mind of an individual it is directed at, the effectiveness of ridicule is best realized when it is delivered publically to a wide audience. The more people disposed to embracing some ideal or belief who see that ideal/belief and its proponents ridiculed, the more likely they are to rethink their position.

Care to address/counter any specifics for my reference on ridicule or the reference on erroneous believer-attribution for the story of Noah?

"Time honoring" = "Appeal to Tradition".

 

Just because there is a long tradition of something does not make it reasonable, good, or right.

And just because you disagree does not make it unreasonable, bad, or wrong. (post hoc ergo propter hoc?) I have at least searched out & posted a supporting reference for my position on ridicule. You for your position; not. I have also sought out & posted a supporting reference contradicting the belief in Bible inerrancy. You to support it; not.

 

You can't possibly know what effect my writing has on 'them', other than 'them' that reply. And isn't your reply ridiculing me when you say "albeit standard"? Of course it is. So who do you mean to convince that my words are 'standard'? Me, or other readers?

No, I think he was just ridiculing your approach. Since you think ridicule has such a time-honoured reputation then I'm sure you will welcome his remarks.

 

I meant your approach is the consensus amongst most scientific types ...here anyway. No ridicule was implied towards you, or anyone else, by me. It's not my style and, besides, I wouldn't want someone calling out "Pot...Kettle..." now would I?

In regards to my thinking on ridicule I have at least given supporting evidence for its time honoring. But nevertheless you are correct and I do enjoy a well turned barb even when directed at moi or my approach. Let me know when you come up with one.

snip...

 

Creationism isn't like a nationality or a profession or a hair color. It's a distortion of facts, a premeditated intellectual dishonesty that has stooped to some devious and distinctly un-Christian methods to misrepresent science and claim Bible inerrancy. I think anyone who has only listened to the creationist argument might stand a chance of removing their ignorance, but for those who have heard the science and still claim to be creationists, still use the same BS arguments and refuted evidence, and still tell outright lies about science, those kinds of creationists are a pox on society.

 

Fanatics with ears they've plugged with their own opposable thumbs.

Then there is the matter of creationists misrepresenting -or if generous, misunderstanding- the inerrancy of the Bible in regards to history as well as science. Specifically that the story of Noah is a hatchet job lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Fantastic distortionists from the git-go. To whit, Tablet XI.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

...

Whatever I had I loaded on it:

whatever silver I had I loaded on it,

whatever gold I had I loaded on it.

All the living beings that I had I loaded on it,

I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat,

all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I

had go up.

Shamash had set a stated time:

'In the morning I will let loaves of bread shower down,

and in the evening a rain of wheat!

Go inside the boat, seal the entry!'

...

Stunned shock over Adad's deeds overtook the heavens,

and turned to blackness all that had been light.

The... land shattered like a... pot.

All day long the South Wind blew ...,

blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water,

overwhelming the people like an attack.

No one could see his fellow,

they could not recognize each other in the torrent.

The gods were frightened by the Flood,

and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.

The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.

Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,

the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:

...

I looked around for coastlines in the expanse of the sea,

and at twelve leagues there emerged a region (of land).

On Mt. Nimush the boat lodged firm,

Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.

One day and a second Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing

no sway.

A third day, a fourth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing

no sway.

A fifth day, a sixth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing

no sway.

When a seventh day arrived

I sent forth a dove and released it.

The dove went off, but came back to me;

no perch was visible so it circled back to me.

I sent forth a swallow and released it.

The swallow went off, but came back to me;

no perch was visible so it circled back to me.

I sent forth a raven and released it.

The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.

It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me

...

Clip clip here, clip clip there,

We give the roughest claws,

That certain air of savoir faire

In the Merry Old Land of Oz

Ha!

There's your problem, you're seeing things that aren't there.

Re-reading the thread I see I saw it just once. Apparently it stuck.

That's ok, but most people are not intellectual so it's not going to be a very effective tool in significantly altering the global or national statistics in favour of a scientifically held viewpoint. It merely serves as possible amusement for some of the scientifically-literate bystanders.

 

A perfect example of an intellectual for which such a device would work ...he's not representative of the vast majority of people.

My claim, at least, was that ridicule works best against arguments that are arrived at intellectually rather than emotionally. I don't claim it's the best tool to use, I don't claim it works against all such arguments and I have no idea what an intellectual is, since all people are capable of both emotional and intellectual reasoning.

 

Creationism isn't like a nationality or a profession or a hair color. It's a distortion of facts, a premeditated intellectual dishonesty that has stooped to some devious and distinctly un-Christian methods to misrepresent science and claim Bible inerrancy. I think anyone who has only listened to the creationist argument might stand a chance of removing their ignorance, but for those who have heard the science and still claim to be creationists, still use the same BS arguments and refuted evidence, and still tell outright lies about science, those kinds of creationists are a pox on society.

 

Fanatics with ears they've plugged with their own opposable thumbs.

Whatever other mentions of intellectuals I thought I saw and meant to address with my comment you quoted, they were not yours. On the contrary, I find your posts most agreeable and perceptive. Carry on.

You claim to be an intelligent man but you don't even give a straight answer, you leave us flooded with evidence with no result. Your evidence that creationism is stupid is from a stereotype, you haven't given other creationists a chance to have their say. You use phrases like 'no obvious crazy showing through' showing us once again that you are someone who likes to stereotype. How do you deal with creationists? Shouldn't the scientist say it's the creationists that he's met and not every one, that's a very imprecise argument if not-- you're slacking.

Creationists -all creationists- reject scientific discoveries that they perceive to be in conflict with their holy book(s), principally the Bible.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

That isn't a stereotype, that is a definition.

The rejection of currently demonstrable facts in favor of non-demonstrable beliefs based on writings that are 1000's of years old and of questionable/debatable origins is ridiculous, silly, pathetic, laughable, ludicrous, preposterous, idiotic, absurd, and otherwise farcical by all measures of those words and their synonyms. Creationists would cut off their own noses to spite their faces. While simply holding a creationist belief is in-and-of itself rather harmless, those who set about to have their views supplant science in public projects and law are a harmful detriment to society and worthy of all lawful efforts that oppose them.

What's it been; almost 90 years since the Scopes trial? And we're still dealing with this kind of idiocy. Good grief.

...

Acme, I did look at the link, but when it shows ships flying kites in the 21st century, I'm sorry but I don't like the idea.

We can do better than that surely. Our ships ought to be nuclear-powered. That would be possible, except for a lack of will.

Apologies if my posts have somewhat derailed the thread.

Whether or not you like the idea is immaterial. By your reasoning -and I use the term loosely- we should have something better than a spoon to eat soup with.

As to the thread, its proposition is so poorly constructed that it guarantees railing if not derailment.

Scientifically is cold a reality? Cold after all is just the absence of heat, to a being on a planet with an average temperature of minus -200 degrees Celsius, it would be like a furnace to them at of minus -90 degrees Celsius, a temperature, at which we earthlings would quickly freeze to death, from lack of heat, not from cold to be accurate.

 

Could we then really prove the existence of cold?, (as long as there is vibration within an object it contains only heat?)

 

On the Celsius scale, absolute zero corresponds to a temperature of -273º Celsius.

Your speculations (arguments?) are just so much word-salad. What are we supposed to learn from them? What advancement or insight do you expect to generate?

Nice one! But that teeny parachute thingy can't add much to the ship's speed. Better if it had 5 times the diameter. But then what happens when the wind drops, the chute falls in the sea, and the cursing crew have to winch the great wet thing back on board, without ripping it to bits on the ship's sides. Why not mount a mast and sail amidships. That'd be easier to handle, if anyone was serious about it, but I don't think they are - it's pure swivel-eyed Greeny stuff (no offence - I know the intentions are good, probably)

The fact is it is proven technology in production and use. You would know that if you had visited the link and/or done any further research into the matter. Is that an impossible scenario? You doing some reading that is. I'm just asking to give some semblance of relation to the OP.

The kite is supplemental to the engines and not intended to add speed but rather reduce fuel use and costs.

Rather than quote folks and reply to each specifically I'll just round up some generalized commentary.

First, I keep seeing the claim that ridicule only works on intellectuals and I question the validity of that claim. Based on what do y'all make it?

Second, assuming it is true then by-and-large the creationists at least consider themselves intellectual insofar as they study the Bible, have taken a tack to rename their belief as intelligent design, and make specific arguments against scientific discoveries. In the specific case of Moontan's lady friend, since she is pursuing a Phd then we ought to allow she is an intellectual if not thinks so herself and so ridicule is well applied.

Yes ridicule is not always the best tool and yes it is not everyones' style. That does not discount that those well skilled can use it to good effect. Discounting it whole-cloth is ridiculous.

The alternative energy crowd only seem to be interested in retrogressing - like getting power from wind.

 

Perhaps they want us to go back to sailing-ships - the wind is free, and quiet engineless hulls wouldn't thrash the ocean with noisy propellers, so the whales and dolphins would enjoy acoustic peace.

 

Of course, ocean voyages would take longer, ships might get becalmed for days by lack of wind, world-trade would be disrupted, economies might suffer, people might run out of food, but while going hungry, they'd be consoled by listening to recordings of whale-songs.

Stupid people saving money and the environment at the same time!!

source: http://www.skysails.info/index.php?L=1

Well, it's an extrapolation based on good evidence about other phenomena in which we discount sensory stimuli that we can correlate with our own actions. Another phenomenon is not noticing the sound of your own footsteps but being very alert if they stop correlating with your own steps. And there's a lot of research on illusions of agency, and also of course on delusions of non-agency (alien hand syndrome, for instance, or auditory hallucinations).

 

So that's the origin of my "hunch". It's testable, and maybe someone has tested it specifically. It's sort of related to my own area of research, which is why I thought of it.

 

And as I've never found the "it's filtered through your head" totally convincing (we seem to be able to recognise other voices quite easily filtered through lots of things), this struck me as potentially a better explanation, and fits with a fair bit of evidence.

I like your answer and original post for putting a new voice on the issue. I do however think some qualification/justification is due for the claim that we "easily" recognize the voices of others when filtered. What is the basis for this claim? If it is true, is it true only for voices familiar to us in both unfiltered and filtered circumstances, or is it equally true for unfamiliar voices? To clarify, are our easily-recognized-filtered-other-voices easily recognized because we have repeatedly heard them filtered?

The hearing ear is always found close to the speaking tongue. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

This thread strikes me as very querulous and approximately equivalent to braggadocio. What am I supposed to be learning here?

You seem to be enjoying things! I was thinking more like ...this :-

 

The Voyage of a Lifetime This future five-year trip around the worldone that will use traditional Polynesian wayfinding knowledge almost entirelyhas never been undertaken before. Get the story behind the epic journey.

 

Story By national Geographic .

 

Mike

Can you provide a link? I can't seem to find the full story from just the images.

Learning is pleasurable but doing is the height of enjoyment. ~Novalis

...

I have made a number of assertions that ridicule is an effective teaching device -in some instances of course- based on anecdotal historical facts in evidence. I'll do due diligence and see if I can find some studies on the issue.

...

That didn't take long. Searching "study on ridicule as effective" I went to the first result of ...well...many. I'll quote judiciously and leave it to the interested reader to follow up. While not quoted here, good ol' Ben gets due acknowledgement for his effective use of ridicule.

www.iwp.edu/docLib/20060209_RidiculeasaWeapon2.2.1.pdf

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY WHITE PAPER NO. 7

Ridicule as a Weapon

 

Ridicule raises morale at home.

Ridicule strips the enemy/adversary of his mystique and prestige.

Ridicule erodes the enemys claim to justice

Ridicule eliminates the enemys image of invincibility.

Directed properly at an enemy, ridicule can be a fate worse than death

...

Conclusion

Ridicule is vital because:

It sticks.

The target cant refute it.

It is almost impossible to repress, even if driven underground.

It spreads on its own and multiplies naturally.

It boosts morale at home.

Our enemy shows far greater intolerance to ridicule than we.

Ridicule divides the enemy, damages its morale, and makes it less attractive to supporters and prospective recruits.

The ridicule-armed warrior need not fix a physical sight on the target. Ridicule will find its own way to the targeted individual. To the enemy, being ridiculed means losing respect. It means losing influence. It means losing followers and repelling potential new backers.

To the enemy, ridicule can be worse than death. At least many enemies find death to be a supernatural martyrdom. Ridicule is much worse: destruction without martyrdom: A fate worse than death. And they have to live with it.

It gets better with each re-telling.

 

This document is an occasional White Paper of a special international communication applied studies program of The Institute of World Politics, 1521 16th Street NW, Washington DC 20036 USA. www.iwp.edu The Institute takes no positions on policy issues, and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. Copyright © 2006

So in conclusion, those who disagree with me are a bunch of poopy heads. lol

Your arguments are fine in the sense that they agree with most scientific types. Yes I'll concede the point that I don't know in practice but I'm with chadn737 based on my 52 years of exposure to human nature on this that it's not a good strategy for the general religious populace. This is one of the few times I find myself in disagreement with the scientific attitude.

Most scientific types? What would that be? Appeal to age? I'm older than you. Not a good strategy? See above.

I meant your approach is the consensus amongst most scientific types ...here anyway. No ridicule was implied towards you, or anyone else, by me. It's not my style and, besides, I wouldn't want someone calling out "Pot...Kettle..." now would I?

OK The quotation marks were ambiguous in intent so I will take you at your word. Likewise, I will take you at your word that you're no kettle as I don't know you well enough yet to judge.

I see you didn't address the issue of your evaluation of what readers think of my writing, or to the bigger point here of whether or not ridicule is or can be an effective tool in swaying peoples' beliefs. (In particular the creationist cadre.) Do you concede my assertion that you have no basis to judge the effectiveness of my -or any- ridicule in changing minds of folks who don't reply to the ridicule?

I have made a number of assertions that ridicule is an effective teaching device -in some instances of course- based on anecdotal historical facts in evidence. I'll do due diligence and see if I can find some studies on the issue.

Meantime, how's things going with you and your lady friend Moontan? Anything here been helpful? Talked to her again yet? Enquiring minds want to know.

Acme

The difference between your approach and chadn737 is they are seeking means to engage and hopefully convert the opposition whereas your, albeit standard, approach only serves to ostracize them and maintain the status quo of two divided camps..

You can't possibly know what effect my writing has on 'them', other than 'them' that reply. And isn't your reply ridiculing me when you say "albeit standard"? Of course it is. So who do you mean to convince that my words are 'standard'? Me, or other readers?

Go right ahead.

So I shall.

Just be aware that you are only reinforcing their stereotypes and opinions.

Opinions are as opinions do.

Maybe its because I come from that background.

Do ya think?

I disagree with them creationists strongly, but I understand how the average Christian feels and acts, so I know how ineffective ridicule and disdain are.

Do you disagree strongly enough that you go out of your way to broach the issue? Or do you just keep your mouth shut until the issue comes up?

I appreciate all the more the individuals I had as professors who did not resort to ridicule, but used instead patience and logic. It is because of their efforts that I accept evolution fully. It is thanks to people who ridiculed me that I actually dug in my heels for a couple of years and refused to accept it entirely.

Nevertheless, you do understand why you were ridiculed, right?

I understand fully the frustration of dealing with obstinate creationists, but regardless of where I am in life, I have seen that patience and calm reason always win out.

That may be your experience, but as an argument for universal application it is a strawman.

One thing you quickly realize is that the discussion is not only happening between you and them. You have onlookers. On public forums like these, there may be thousands or more who read and never engage in a conversation. In classrooms and other public settings, there may be dozens listening that never speak out. In public debates, there are millions watching. You may not convince the person you are talking to, but you may convince the silent onlooker. However, if you resort to ridicule, that leaves a negative impression and can that sway opinion in the opposite direction.

I am fully aware of my audience. As I have pointed out, ridicule and mockery have a long and honored tradition in human discourse. This is even recognized in copyright law wherein greater leeway to use the works of others is given to lampoonery.

In many public forums I have had Christians, many creationists, thank me for taking the time to explain concepts and doing so calmly. Meanwhile my opponent goes off the rails and begin calling me everything from liar to an atheist. I never convinced or swayed those individuals, but I did have an influence on those that read, but never engaged.

How can you possibly know your influence on those who did not engage? That's rhetorical of course as you cannot know.

That is a positive development, because if nothing else, there are a dozen more Christians out there who even if they don't believe in evolution personally, they at least no longer see it as a thread or something incompatible.

Well let's party then.

In my opinion, the important thing here is not my feelings, but the impact I have and how I influence people. I see the promotion of science and the acceptance of concepts like evolution as an important task to the education of the public. So regardless of my frustration, my feelings, etc...I am going to use the methods of communication that I know has the greatest positive impact. To those who take issue with this, you honestly are reinforcing stereotypes and making the situation worse.

Well, you know what lampooners say about opinions. And if your feelings don't count, why should the feelings of those you defend count?

There is a time for everything,

and a season for every activity under the heavens: ~ Ecclesiastes 3

Moontanman,

 

...

But if fossils are a conspiracy to your soon to be PHD friend, have her go to the Grand Canyon, and give you an estimate when she returns of how long it would take the Colorado to erode that much rock, and have her give you a run down of the geological history that the layers exposed on the sides reveal, that must have occured BEFORE the grove was carved by the river.

 

If her whole story adds up to only 4000 years, and it is anywhere close to sensible (which it won't be) then I would agree with her, that creation 4000 years ago is remotely possible. But anybody standing on the rim of the grand canyon will "feel" its age and hence the Earth's age, and she will know it's been around for much longer than the creation story in the Bible, and the lineage depicted from Adam to Abraham and Moses and such would allow.

 

Which is true then. Every word of the Bible, or the Grand Canyon? There can be no conspiracy involved if its just her standing at the rim, and grasping what she is looking at....

Regards, TAR

Hi TAR

I'm no Moontanman, but I must reply here. A long time ago and close close nearby I was studying geology as an adjunct to other coursework. While not required, I took some additional classes and one included a 2 week field trip from the Columbia Gorge to the Grand Canyon and back. Along for the trip was a creationist whose sole purpose was to prove accepted geology was a lie. We all hiked to the bottom of the canyon and back and he never let up on arguing with the instructor. Convinced? Hardly. Convinced at Yosemite? Nope. Hiking to top of Mt. Lassen? Not even. Mono Lake? Phhhh. Bryce Canyon? Stupid scientists. Columbia Gorge and Missoula floods? You got to be kidding.

I suppose the instructor needed to be patient or lose his job, but more then a few of us dozen other students would have gladly left that SOB young-earther in Death Valley. Not only was his pig-headedness and non-stop arguing a pain to bear, it took away the instructor from those of us who had legitimate questions and topics of discussion.

Be nice and don't offend his dear tender feelings? Bullshit. What about my dear tender feelings? I paid for a class in science and that jackass screwed me out of a fair amount of it. Oh that I had known then what I know now.

I liked a response from an astronomy prof along about the same time when a girl raised her hand when we were discussing star formation and told the prof what he was saying was against her religion. He said you don't have to believe it, you just have to learn it. As I recall she did neither.

I'm certain you can find exceptions where it has helped, but one can always find exceptions. As a general rule though, its bad to base ones decisions on cherry picked examples. We are talking about the communication of science no? We aren't talking about only trying to convince a young Ben that he is wrong, we are talking about how do we convince a large segment of society that they are wrong. When an individual like Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss speak, they aren't talking only to a "Ben", they are talking to thousands or millions of people. For every "Ben" they convince, they turn away thousands more and give ammo to people like Ken Ham to use. So is it worth convincing one "Ben" at the expense of isolating thousands and doing far more damage to your cause?

 

I don't know how often many of you regularly engage with Christians, have serious relationships with them in Church and outside. Its very easy in the workplace to maintain neutral relationships where nobody discusses such things. Since I am part of a Christian community, I find that things are very different. Is not an option for me to isolate my friends or family or pastors through ridicule. Quite frankly, their view of evolution is something that rarely arises. However, I can't think of any individual who would be helped intellectually or personally by me ridiculing them. When I was in the military, the environment was very different and you get a feel for when ridicule is an appropriate means of motivation. For the vast majority of Christians, this is not appropriate. In such discussions, I have to spend a lot of time convincing them that evolution does not equal atheism and that scientists are not the enemy. These perceptions...they aren't shaped by people like Ken Ham, many of them have never even heard of Ken Ham. Typically, they are shaped by sound bites from people like Richard Dawkins which are spread across the web as proof that scientists are the enemy.

 

Ridicule = ammunition

Ridicule = isolation

Ridicule has only made the situation so much worse that I can't even emphasize it enough.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Given the variability we humans exhibit I have no doubt there is more than enough room for spending a lot of time convincing creationists as well ridiculing them. May the farce be with you.