Debating Dr. Michael Behe with Dr. Jay Bundy 

Believable, he is as slippery as a hagfish and as much of a contortionist as a cat... both of which are at least naturally more interesting than Behe's overly simplified, silly and condescending teachings.

I'm not even a professional biologist, or a scientist in anything but only the most liberal sense of the word, and even I have done two live web debates with a creationist and I completely destroyed him in both. I do it because I have a specific background with creationism that made it salient to me how dangerous it is and how cruel it is to the people who believe in it. I debate creationists not because their nonsense lives rent free in my head but because it distresses me that they might do to their children what was done to me. And even I have had colleagues who are also decidedly not biologists have similar reactions. "Why?" is definitely something I get a lot. Most rational people think creationists are a lost cause.

Yeah,don’t talk to anyone if you’re treating your audience like babies who need gatekeeping,if nobody pushed back against these religious freaks,things would’ve stayed in the dark ages..so disrespectful

@@austinsims4560 keep up the good work. 👍

Yeah. It’s very much a part of the culture. Their audience really appreciates it.

Yeah it's a strategy that I have used in my debates with creationists. Even though with a gun to my head I would admit that I absolutely loathe them, nobody wants to admit they are wrong to somebody they don't like and don't relate to. I hope by being the "friendly" "evolutionist" "one of the good ones" or whatever that they will be more likely to actually entertain my arguments. It has worked a handful of times. I consider that a win. But yeah when creationists do it it is definitely more slimy and sinister. It's a tactic to get into position, and start lying without being held accountable and if you are you impugn the person pointing out your lying for "not being polite." I think of creationists as being in denial and gentleness and kindness are more effective tools for convincing someone to abandon denial then being forceful. Sometimes they are even more effective than actual logic and facts. They need to feel safe to change their mind, which can be difficult to achieve with someone who's afraid changing their mind will make them candidates for being subjected to eternal torture.

Yes, I totally agree with you. Although I think there is a place for forceful dialogue as well within a persons de conversion journey.

Yet he whines about platforming and can’t handle the mildest criticism,Bundy needs to grow a spine,i’m a life long atheist & no conservacuk btw..

@@SabracadabrO I didn't get that impression at all.

​@@SabracadabrOYou think Behe needs help from others getting a platform? I thought he was highly supported by his disinformation group the DI.

@@austinsims4560 I’ve seen this dude “platform”Pinecreep,he seems to chop n change depending on his”mood”,another Dillahunty type>”everyone who disagrees is a Nazi”horseshoe is a scientific theory now bruh..

​@@SabracadabrOAre you drunk? Because you're not making much sense with all this gibberish. If he doesn't want to feature Behe on his channel why isn't that up to him? Unless you found any errors in the video maybe you should stop yelling at the clouds.

If you recognize that you're dealing with dishonest people who are trying to brainwash others for money and power, the aggressive approach makes more sense. Scammers thrive on debate and etiquette. They will gish gallop and take advantage of every courtesy you give them in order to keep their victims from escaping. And as you've implied, a brainwashed victim is already ignoring all voices outside of the scammer. So if facts won't work, your best option is exposing the scammer as a fraud. This can make you look unprofessional, but you're not dealing with honest people. If you can expose the scammer as a fraud, the victims have a chance. Maybe they just move to the next scammer, but at least you have put a dent in the reputation of one scammer. On the other hand, one channel had a unique idea. Instead of addressing the scammers, just publish information that supports the science. Make it so correct information is impossible to avoid. You can't force people to read the actual science, but maybe you can make it harder to avoid.

Can't get less true than not at all true.

They also don't make Behe's arguments more true.

Imagine a fraudster on trial, and the defense said "stop calling my client a dishonest liar, that's just a personal attack" When discussing if and why an organization and its members are fraudulent, pointing out lies or dishonest behaviour is relevant. You can, in parallel, also discuss the factual content. But there's nothing intriniscally wrong with pointing out the conceptual and evidential flaws with irreducible complexity and also noticing that the person who popularized the idea is not a nice person.

What's your example of a personal attack on Behe?

I find that I am perfectly capable both of calling people a liar and also demonstrating how they are liars.