Why do I argue?

A personal statement

Why do I do it?

Some people have asked me why I argue with creationists. They will not be pursuaded, they will argue until they're blue, they will not see logic, it's completely pointless. And what's more, the arguments can get extremely intense and emotional.

Well, there are several reasons why I argue. The first is that I very much enjoy it. I think it's a lot of fun. This reason is why I describe arguing with creationists as a hobby. But that is minor, and comes as a consequence of my other reasons.

My first real reason is that those who argue against evolution are usually just plain wrong. They are trying to convince others of their factually wrong viewpoint, and I feel that it is responsible of me to point out to others their factual errors. They are taking opinion and hearsay and promoting it as fact.

For example, it is a common creationist argument to say that evolution is in contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, they say, prohibits order arising from chaos. Complex structures cannot arise on their own, they must be designed.

Well, no. That's not at all what the Second Law states. The Second Law states that the overall 'entropy' of a closed system will always increase. There is a very big difference between the thermodynamic concept of 'entropy' and the common-sense concept of 'chaos' and it has nothing to do with information. However, the Second Law of Creationist Thermodynamics is frequently cited as true fact. I object to that.

It is often stated that Darwin recanted the theory of evolution on his deathbed and wished he had never invented it. First off, what does it matter what the man said - it's the theory and the mechanism that we support, not the man. Second, the story is a falsehood, promulgated by a 'disbeliever' in evolution as a crude ad hominem attack. Darwin's daughter stated publicly that it was not true and that the person to whom he supposedly said this never visited him.

To me arguments like this are similar to urban legends. Perhaps important if true, but fortunately not - like the story about rat urine on the tops of Coke cans.

So that's one reason why I argue against creationists - to correct the misinterpretations and the outright falsehoods that have emerged in creationist literature. Call it a moral responsibility.

The second reason is more personal, and essentially comes down to self-development. I like honing my skills at rhetoric and argument, and improving my general communication skills. If I see an argument I haven't seen before then I want to be able to analyse and counter it.

Unfortunately I don't see many arguments I haven't seen before. But that's all right - every time I counter a particular argument I get better and better.

The third reason I argue with creationists is precicely that they never give up. I can never actually win an argument - therefore it is a perpetual exercise. It's no good if when you go to the gym you decide that you will do 1,000 bench presses at a rate of 10 per day then stop and never do any more. No, you do 10 per day for as long as you can stand it.

If a creationist ever stopped and said "Hey, you're right. I'm convinced. I've been wrong all this time" I would be very surprised. That would show me that they never really had conviction in the first place. I'd probably be perversely pleased that they finally managed to see the light, but I would also be disappointed at the end of the argument.

I don't think it is a waste of time to argue against creationists. I do not engage in theological or philosophical arguments - the former because I don't know that much, and the latter because philosophy is such a fuzzy grey area that all statements are statements of opinion. On the rare occasions when I do contribute to such a discussion, I make it clear that it is a personal view, not a scientific one.

I don't have a degree in science. I am a well-read amateur. I have a little knowledge about a lot of subjects. My favourite scientific subjects are Quantum Mechanics and Evolution. Both are widely misunderstood, and I correct misinterpretations of Evolution as ardently as I correct misinterpretations of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. But I study them without the detail of a university student.

Some of my opinions are a bit one-sided. But I like to think they are one-sided on the side of 'truth' and skepticism. I will accept anything that can be repeatably demonstrated. If someone showed me an alien flying saucer and I couldn't prove that it was anything else, I would probably accept it as real.

The late Stephen Jay Gould said "In science, 'fact' can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". That is the sense in which I use the word. To me, evolution is confirmed fact. Quantum mechanics is confirmed fact. The Big Bang is confirmed fact. These confirmed facts flatly contradict the teachings of Bible literalists and Young Earth Creationists, and so what they say is wrong - unless interpreted as theology or philosophy. Bible literalists and Young Earth Creationists rarely interpret their statements as theology or philosophy.

I don't think that so-called 'Creation Science' should be taught alongside evolutionary biology in high school science classes. That doesn't mean I don't think biblical creation should be taught at all. It is a religious subject and it should be taught alongside other religious subjects. It should be taught alongside the Hindu Vedas, the Buddhist sutras, and the teachings of Mohammed. Christianity is not the only religion. There are many other people in the world who believe just as fiercely in their versions of creation as the Christians do. The Hindus do not try to get Brahmin taught as science.

There is no justification for enforcing equality between Creation and Evolution in science. That's why I argue with creationists.