PINECONES!!

So I tuned into the League of Reason blogtv and there was a lot of talk about pinecones.A Young Earth Creationist had called in, a fellow by the name of TruthfulChristian, and presented information that he had come across that stated that pine cones are smaller today than they were in the past. By "in the past" it was determined pretty much by chance later in the conversation that he meant in the fossil record. He asked if that disproved evolution.The hosts there were all YouTube "heavyweights", with dprjones moderating, AronRa, ThunderF00t, AndromedasWake, DonExodus, all guys that I respect for their knowledge, and I've been watching their videos for a while now.But, the heavyweights were tripping all over themselves dealing with smaller parts of this, trying to poke holes in every minute aspect of the argument from "what's the source?", to a rather intense explanation of the statistical measurement of the average size of pine cones over time, and even digressing off to the stereotyping of American perceptions of "bigger is better". This stuff just clouds the question....but there are two things that I felt never came up that could have settled it simply and quickly, and they were simple questions that would help frame the question better for TruthfulChristian, in a way that he'd more easily accept than the salvos that were coming from the hosts.Videos are popping up already of the "spanking" that the four youtubers gave this theist. Sure, you got a cheap chuckle, but what did it accomplish? Do you think that TruthfulChristian left that conversation with the opinion that maybe he should rethink some things, or do you just think he got a disappointing answer that went nowhere and that he doesn't understand?I tried to enter into the chat, but I was in a waiting room and it just got swallowed up in the nonsense... so I'll deliver it here:1: There's obviously a disconnect on the understanding of evolution. Explain quickly that evolution is just essentially change over time. The change can be good, bad, or neutral, evolution doesn't have a "direction". Natural selection is the "filtering process" on those changes to make sure the most suitable changes stay, and negative changes are weeded out. Then explain that the fact that the pine cone has changed over time would indicate an evolutionary process in at work. Then ask what the benefits of a smaller pine cone might be (for example, it's easier for the tree to produce, smaller creatures might eat them allowing the tree to reproduce better, etc), and have a discussion on that.Have some explanations done ahead of time and maybe even memorized, so you can quickly deliver the concept of evolution, or natural selection, or any of the other KNOWN problems or misconceptions that creationists have.2. Bounce the ball back into the Creation camp. Ask how Creation accounts for a smaller pine cone now than might be in the fossil record. Creationists - and especially Young Earth Creationists - believe that the world and everything in it was created AS IT EXISTS TODAY. So how does Creation explain the smaller pine cone?I'm just saying, sometimes the better approach is not through the brute force shouting over of highly technical terminology and fooferah. While you may be absolutely right, you may as well be speaking latin to the person who asked the question. These are typically not people with the same technical expertise as you might have, and I don't mean that as a negative on TruthfulChristian. You're there to enlighten, not score points.Here you have contact. An indispensible opportunity to introduce the questioner to the fundamentals of critical thinking, or help them exercise it a little bit. It's a genuine opportunity to help somebody.Keep in mind, most people are not going to challenge you technically, and I doubt that's what TruthfulChristian was there for. Most people are going to be struggling with cognitive dissonances themselves.It was something Carl Sagan recognized, and his Cosmos series lives on today as a masterpiece of scientific inspiration. He spoke in simple language, and delivered a lot of new information and heady concepts without getting heavily bogged down in detail and terminologies. At the end of his presentations, the viewer's head was left spinning, but it was out of awe, out of inspiration.And now that I've reminded myself of that, I have to go back and rewrite my Calvin TFL script AGAIN to Saganize it.I'm SmilingSkeptic, I've got a small channel, I'm just starting out, I don't know if any of you guys in the call-in show are going to see this, but I had to get this out, and I hope you do hear it. I think it'll change the face of the show for a huge positive. All in all, very enjoyable for the very first show. Thumbs up, for sure.

Facebook

Iwitter

Yahoo