Reply #9: Its not necessarily the one's running the argument [View All]

[Az]

The trouble is the more vocal ones affect others around them. A real fanatic won't be swayed. But they can sway others. Evidence like this helps to fill in the gaps that they like to hide in. As soon as you hear them running up an argument that in the past we had no direct evidence for you can trot out the new evidence and put a stake in it. It won't convince the fanatic but the audience gets the picture. And the more times we do this to them the less credibility they have.

Thats the trouble with how ideas spread. As much as we would like to to be based on reason and well thought out delivery it more often is based on how a person feels about whoever is making the claims. There are a couple of ways of dealing with this when facing a creationist. Heading off their arguments discredits them in the eyes of those listening. It also throws them off their rhythm.

Creationists thrive by creating uncertainty. Where there are doubts they can move in with emotional appeals. Thus in the past when they point to the complexity of the eye we have usually been left with theoretical paths that evolution could have taken. But for the audience what it comes down to is they can see an eye, they cannot see a theory. The creationist argument seems to be more real to them. Thus a refutation such as this one gives them something concrete to thwart the creationists argument with.