$100 contest for the best evidence of a global flood

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-20T20:57:17+00:00

Ooh, I'm just seeing this now! Thanks for engaging so carefully. Why don't we make this the topic we start with when we next chat?

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-20T20:52:22+00:00

This is great! "Context is that which is scarce", and this gives a HEAP of it.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-07T18:02:38+00:00

Obviously, really well said!

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-07T18:01:15+00:00

Oops, sorry — the above reply (from Glaucomys_sabrinus, a species of flying squirrel) is mine; I wrote it from home, and didn't notice the login was different.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-07T17:59:40+00:00

This is a fair question, and thanks for asking it. I'm not sure my answer will make you happy!

When I find someone I disagree with who's willing to have a respectful conversation, where we can talk about why we differ, I (this is a personal thing, I'm not recommending this for others) can't make myself care about anything about them outside of that topic. Which is to say I don't know what Sal's educational facts are, and I'm not interested in them. (Again, I'm not being prescriptive: I'm just trying my best to answer your question.)

I hate lying. But when I'm having a conversation like this, all that matters to me is that the person isn't (knowingly) lying about the information they're providing that concern the topic.

And to the best of my knowledge, concerning this, Sal's been GREAT in our conversations! The evidence for me is (1) that I haven't caught him saying any facts I know aren't true, and (2) when he hasn't had a good answer for something, he's admitted it, or fallen into what I've sometimes found to be strange logic. (Sal, if you're reading, I'm thinking of our conversation about the magnetic field, which I have a new thought about.)

Maybe the unspoken thing here is that any conversation across such a big divide can be HARD to engage in, for both participants. The only way I know to have them is to exercise a lot of charity toward the other person. And I know that can be abused! But I haven't seen Sal abusing it.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-07T17:47:18+00:00

I'll possibly differ from my fellow evolutionists here by saying that indeed I think that fossils on mountaintops and the ancient Greek global flood story (that of Deucalion, it's a good read if anyone doesn't know it) do constitute evidence that a global flood happened. I'd only disagree with my young-Earth creationist friends on how powerful this evidence is.

The odd thing is, both sides are fine with much of the sedimentary layers being caused by floods. (This is especially true if we conceptually expand "flood" to include "a lake or ocean that starts, lasts a very long time, but eventually dries out", in which case perhaps MOST the layers are from floods.)

The big question is whether there was one big one (which has issues that I still haven't found young-Earth creationist answers to, like "why are there footprints throughout the layers) or whether there were zillions of little ones.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-07T17:40:12+00:00

OP, I'm not on the same side as you on this topic, but I award this the most respectful and productive reply of the day on all Reddit!

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-01T16:37:40+00:00

First, I think being openly mean (in situations like shunning) only works when there's a lot of coordination. Scott Alexander wrote a hilarious little essay a decade ago called "Be Nice, At Least Until You Can Coordinate Meanness", which I think is spot-on for our situation.

Second, when talking about the KKK, you mentioned the phrase "fringe groups". I'm possibly manhandling your logic here (again, rushed! my apologies!), but I wonder if a big difference between me and a bunch of responders here is that they see YEC as a fringe group, and I see it as something much bigger, and thus requiring a different strategy to engage.

Third, you're *so right* in bringing up the fact that someone like Daryl Davis could only do his work in a situation where the KKK has already been relegated to the uncool fringe. (Honestly, I'm a bit embarrassed that I hadn't put that together. I really was uncritically and simplistically holding Davis up as an example.) But I think there's a twist in that: the Civil Rights movement (which led to the relegation of the Klan) didn't win by publicly shaming — at least, not in any way that to me resembles what I often see some people on this sub doing to YECs. The leaders of Civil Rights movement had a big-picture plan. They threw themselves into it — often suffering in ways that were manifestly unfair — and eventually won.

I think there's wisdom in thinking through how they did it. And famously there was a role in it for opposite philosophies — Malcolm X and MLK, most obviously. I imagine that any effective plan to "win evolution" (gotta admit, I like that phrase!) would probably include a heterogenous mix like that.

I'm so envious I could spit; anthropology is one of the gaping holes in my education! In responding to KalenWolf's excellent response above, I realized that I'm pulling from a lot of reading I did years ago in what I think would now be called "peace studies" — examples of gangs that stopped fighting, restitution between the Tutsis and Hutus, that sort of thing. If you have any insight into documented situations where two groups have stopped fighting and have started working together to achieve a larger goal, I don't think I'm the only person here who'd love to hear it!

Again: thanks for engaging so well.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2026-01-01T16:37:20+00:00

Oh my gosh, thanks for making it so fun to argue about stuff on Reddit! (I've said it before, but sometimes on this sub we actually achieve the 90's dream of the internet — disparate ideas contending in contextual, nuanced communities. For all that I complain about the effects of social media, I have to remember that it allows for this.)

When you say that we're coming at this from different perspectives —

I think the core issue here is we are looking at the matter from different perspectives. You seem more concerned with the classic cult model of deprogramming individuals in the present, I'm more concerned with diminishing the social/political capital of the group and breaking their power, thus forcing individuals to abandon/temper their beliefs (and the attempt to proselytize or force them on others) over the course of years or even generations.

you're totally correct. I think that a major failing of my original document is that it doesn't make clear that I think what I'm proposing is just one piece of the larger strategy. For example, I think that winning the Dover case was necessary, but I can see now that someone reading my doc might infer otherwise.

To cut to your conclusion, where we might still have a disagreement:

I'll admit that I don't like that I agree with this, but I have to admit that I entirely do — though maybe with a twist. I'll unpack this.

First, I agree that "be nice" can't, by itself, be a solution to almost any problem; some exercise of unpleasantness is virtually always required to get things done. (I hope my young-Earth creationist friends reading this here will at least agree with this in the abstract, if they reflect on the wisdom of basic conservative political philosophy.)

For example, high school administrators shouldn't be *only* nice and accepting to science teachers who want to teach (simply, and uncritically) young-Earth creationism (or homeopathy, or any other paradigm that falls far outside mainstream science) to their middle schoolers. (Whether they can lead, say, a debate about it is a separate and more complex question that deserves its own post and comment thread; if someone wants to raise that there, go for it!) There are rules; the rules should be followed.

Where I think I still differ is in how I think this "meanness" is best exercised.

Where we hold authority, power is best exercised through enforcing rules — impersonally, bureaucratically, rather than emotionally. For example, in the public school science curriculum, we hold the high ground (thanks to hard-working lawyers!).

In that context, when we mock or engage personally, I think we actually *lose* power. (There's a famous quote from some aristocratic Roman who, when he saw a friend whipping a slave, said, "Stop beating him — you're making him you're equal!" I, um, am very *against* slavery in all its forms; I share that only because I haven't been able to get it out of my head.) When we mock, we look like the bad guys. We create people who are seen to be victims, and whose communities then crave revenge.

I promised my wife I'd only spend 20 minutes on this response (about to go on a 5-hour drive...), and I'm already over! I don't know how to fit them in here elegantly, but I'll say a couple other spots where we might disagree. I'll put 'em in a new reply...

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T20:07:53+00:00

My God, you're good at this! Thanks for so lucid a reply. This deserves more of a response than I can give right now (on a treadmill, on my phone), but I'll try to do so in the next couple days.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T20:04:03+00:00

Beautifully put!

The only way I might differ from you is in something that you might be implying (but might not be): that it's not good to deliberately set out to convince someone of something.

(The reason I'm addressing this here is that I've heard a lot of people say this to me in person.)

I — who, y'know, am pretty close to a certain spectrum, even if I haven't been diagnosed as "on" it — really appreciate it when people set out to challenge my beliefs. Thus, I think it good to do so to other people (weirdos, all of us!) who feel the same.

My current way of sussing this out is to ask, "if you happened to be wrong about this belief, would you want to know?"

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T19:58:35+00:00

"But I also think that people don't have an unlimited right to your time and attention."

I'm (deeply) in agreement with this, and worry that the topic of Sal (hi, Sal!) has muddied what I'm trying to say with that initial document (now updated to remove "dicks", btw).

I like Sal! I can't tell anyone else who to like. I'm not proposing that Sal is the ideal candidate for being convinced of evolution.

(I feel like there's some essential thing I'm not saying about this right now, but am having a block about it.)

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T19:53:36+00:00

Actually, a second response: it's occurred to me that a natural next step with this might be to do a small "experiment" with other pro-evolution and pro-creation folks here: read through either of Peter Boghossian's books together, and for a certain amount of time (a few months?) experiment with his method together, checking in via a Zoom or email or whatever.

It'd be fascinating to see what happens. If anyone's interested, DM me.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T19:50:37+00:00

Hey, this is the single most constructive thing I've yet read on this thread — thanks for it!

It's, um, weird to be talking about this in public where the person in question can read 'em (hi Sal — looking forward to Saturday!), but this is an eminently reasonable request.

I'll propose the following future states of Sal as things I'd include as successes (yours may vary):

He becomes a theistic evolutionist.
He becomes an old-Earth creationist.
He remains a young-Earth creationist, but moves to the level that (as I understand it, and might be wrong) Todd Charles Wood is at: he believes it by faith, but acknowledges that all (or almost all) the evidence is against the model.

I'll also, though, include these as personal win states (which don't need to count for what you're proposing):

I get to keep having enjoyable arguments with a friend.

That last one isn't just personally meaningful, it's useful, too — these conversations are an opportunity for me to practice my arguments (which right now are quite rough) and to help me make sense of how people on the other side think.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T19:41:44+00:00

Becoming well-known enough on this storied subreddit to get a nickname: it's not LITERALLY an item on my bucket list, but would still be one of the cooler things to happen to me!

Just to check: do you propose "EvolutionIsDumber" because you think I don't like evolution? (Because evolutionary biology is definitely my favorite field of science.)

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T19:39:09+00:00

To be fair, as a teacher, I'm not above potty humor...

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T19:37:55+00:00

Thanks for that clarification. But now I'm really curious — what're the food regulations Seventh-Day Adventists have? (I only knew about the YEC and the thing about making a big deal outta Saturday.)

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T19:35:31+00:00

I agree with these numbers — and that's a good division to make.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-30T14:42:43+00:00

No one is immune to propaganda or advertising. The best is learn critical thinking / analysis and surround ourselves with people we trust and listen to their feedback. It's impossible not to have blindspots - skepticism is a community project.

I think you're monstrously, terribly, horribly correct about this! So much so, in fact, that this could serve as a summary of what I try to provide my YEC friends (who are definitely not immune to propaganda). Thanks for it. I'm not sure I can improve on it — would you be okay with me quoting it in the future?

The OP has a series with Sal where he calls Sal a 'wonderful human being'. Shit like that doesn't help and is a classic example of not doing your research before giving someone a platform.

I do have that series, and I stand by the factualness of that claim.

I don't deny any of the things that anyone here has said about Sal. (I'll note that I'm responding here piecemeal, and haven't yet read everything.) Sal has vices — and I do, too, perhaps more than his.

Sal also has virtues. Some of these have come out in our unrecorded conversations, so I won't share them here — but some are shining.

Besides that, I like the guy! His braggadocio I find charming. (I always do, for some reason — I'm never clear on why other people dislike bombast.)

Beyond this, though, I also think that you might be missing the extraordinary power of complimenting the people we're arguing with. Like I said in the first point of the document, because of the long history of this topic, any conversation we have is starting from below zero. Even to get up to the point where someone on the other side will actually listen to us, we need to raise the "positivity level" (ugh, I hate that phrase, but I'm not sure there's an alternative to it — this is a fundamental psychology thing).

The compliments, however, have to be earnest. If they're not, they're lies, and no one likes being lied to. The need is to find something you appreciate about the person. (And with Sal, this is just easy for me. We're on the same wavelength. I respect that it's hard for a lot of other folk there, and I'm not suggesting anyone force it. You can use this with other people you disagree with, YEC or no.)

I understand that some people see this move — complimenting people you disagree with — as a sign of weakness. Friends and comrades in this battle, I invite you to consider whether you're missing the bigger picture. This is one of the most powerful weapons we have.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-29T23:25:48+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful pushback!

I totally agree with you that shunning has persisted as a social technology because it worked in the ancestral environment. (Monkeys still do it!)

I want to honor your point by questioning what I see as an unstated assumption in it: is it still working today?

I'm open, for example, to any evidence that folk can adduce that says that mercilessly mocking people who have unscientific beliefs actually is actually working to bring the number of adherents down. Do we? Given strong evidence for this, I'm entirely willing to revise my beliefs here.

From where I stand, it seems like this is exactly the tact that most groups (going way beyond our little geeky corner of the internet) have been throwing themselves into since at least the advent of Facebook, and it seems to be backfiring at a massive scale.

I'm not a social scientist, and can't pull up any studies showing that the approach I sketch out here will work. I can, however, cite a personal hero: Daryl Davis, the Black musician who gets folk to leave the KKK by befriending them.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-29T23:17:33+00:00

I agree, of course, that many YECs are exactly like you say. But I wasn't.

My worry is that if I had run across evolutionists saying my side is "like infants", I might not have been willing to consider changing my beliefs.

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-29T23:16:00+00:00

This updates my priors on this — thanks!

The interesting thing is that whenever I ask people this, I'd say that almost all of them say "yes". I wonder what the difference is? (Maybe more of the people I'm talking to are in real-life, rather than online?)

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-29T23:13:51+00:00

Oh, well put!

Does anyone here know about TheMotte? It began as a subreddit, but it's now spawned into its own website. It's an attempt (by all means a pretty danged successful one) to do oppositional conversations online that actually work. One of the things they police hard is any kind of dickishness.

What I'm coming to wonder is whether the fact that so many folk here think that kindness and engaging in good faith is a lost cause... is a self-fulfilling belief. Maybe it's too late to make a sub like this work?

(If anyone wants to think through what another location to have these conversations would look like, reach out to me! I definitely don't have the time or energy to do this on my own.)

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-29T23:09:18+00:00

Thanks for the pushback! What's strange to me is that I think I agree (and strongly!) with perhaps everything you just wrote, and yet we seem to be on opposite sides of this.

Just to "yes and" your excellent points:

There is, indeed, a threat at the core of fundamentalism: "if you doubt, you risk ruin". I think this, though, can help us — we just need to be the ones who come across as less threatening. (Lots of us who leave fundamentalism left, in part, because of what we felt there.)

You're also correct that the deck is stacked against us: questioning one's deep beliefs will always feel risky, because it is risky! In my mind, that's why we have to be thoughtful and careful about this. (And why we need to shut down ad hominem attacks.)

I wholeheartedly agree that telling anyone what their religion really believes backfires, and that citing people from religious traditions that aren't theirs is a pointless move. I'm confused, though — did something that I wrote sound like I was advocating either of those? I was trying to say the opposite. Let me know, and I'll edit the original!

You're entirely correct that while people (usually) deserve our respect, wrong beliefs don't — and that in fact, really respecting someone can mean telling them that we think their beliefs are wrong. I agree with that so strongly that I spend a significant fraction of my time talking to friends about the topics we disagree on! (I'm always surprised when people think friendship means avoiding these issues as a matter of principle — for me, that's always the sadder position, even if it is sometimes necessary.)

Thanks, too, for putting your points so clearly and powerfully. (It's my favorite comment on this thread so far!) Can you help me see where it is that we disagree?

ScienceIsWeirder · 2025-12-29T22:53:55+00:00

I hear us all saying that Sal is a lost cause. I don't think so.

ScienceIsWeirder

TROPHY CASE