IDiots pwnd!

How to respond to requests to debate creationists

[...]
Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Seriously, read the whole thing.

Religious scholars & philosophers debate religion, scientists present data. The data is peer reviewed, relies on predictions, and is proved wrong or correct.

Scientists do not come to a consensus, they come to a conclusion that is supported by proven facts that can reproduced.

Philosophers & religionists may come to a consensus, but when they do there are a paucity of facts, just a mutual acceptance of some of the oppositions' viewpoints.

AKA, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Two things in the comments on this article stood out to me:
1) Attributed to Professor Robert May: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine"
2) Attributed to George Hrab:
If you deny evolution then you're denying biology.
If you deny biology then you're denying chemistry.
If you deny chemistry then you're denying physics.
If you deny physics then you're denying mathematics.
If you deny mathematics then you're denying reality.

Robert May's quote comes under the category of 'Ohhh, Snap!'

George Hrab's quote is poetry & truth in the form of a mathematical proof.
I think he should have included astronomy, but it probably wouldn't have scanned as well.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak