Rich Mathers <R-Mathers@wiu.edu> wrote:

Larry Moran:

I volunteer for the job of chief ridiculer.

I think this is the correct strategy. We need to go on the offensive.
We need to make the public aware of the fact that most scientists
think of these people as kooks. That might play into the hands of the
deovoted but they're a hopeless cause anyway.

It's the average person we want to reach. They need worry about being
laughed at if they jump on the Creationist bus. They need to think
about the fact that they, or their children, might be called an

public. Our goal is to portray Creationism, correctly, as something
that has about as much credibility as the Flat Earth Society or

motion.

Don't debate them. Laugh at them.

This is the best tactic.

Most people do not and won't understand but
few of the varied issues surrounding evolution, ID, or creationism.

As
much as it pains me I think a more political approach is more effective.

Derision, sarcasm, and humor coupled with some easy to understand
"talking points" by scientists will be more effective than debating an
evolutonist denier like Pittman.

He will complain correctly that it is
a dishonest approach to science but what he is talking about is not
science anyway.

Worse. His is a dishonest approach to science of a far
worse sort. He speaks in obfuscations, reiterates points
that have been shown to be wrong, and simply denies that
counterarguments have any validity.

I'm not an expert, but I'll say it again. I do believe from
what I've been told, that botany provides many examples of
observed natural speciation, sometimes of a fairly drastic
sort.

We never discuss botany because it is not an "in" subject.

The debate format if done too seriously gives
undeservied credit to their idiocies. I honestly believe, a happy,
light conversational style presentation like a comedian who engages his
audience will be more effective in the long run than scholarly disecting
the issues.

I know it is a sad commentary on our present cultural climate.