Doubting Didymus

He's out of breath. Give him a chance to inhale.

Oolon Colluphid

Okay... it seems things have moved on overnight (here).
It looked that way on the basis of the evidence. But being a good scientist , in light of the new evidence in LWF’s more recent posts, and DD’s statement about his previous rationality, I’ll revise my conclusion. For now.

A conclusion too far. I hadn’t stopped trying, merely that letting my irritation show (did it? ) may have distracted from the explanations in my posts.

Ah, but this is why I lost patience. The nature of creationism was referred to in Albion’s post on page 1, and on page 2 in Albion’s, Rufus’s, at the end of Monkey’s, and touched on in mine. Yet at the top of page 3 we get:

... while telling me I’m confused about the terms. He has been put straight on it, and resorted / returned to the ‘not all creationists are ignorant’ tack. So by now there should be no doubt about it. We’ll wait and see...

So far we appear to be at the stage of ‘creationists are mistaken, provided that evolution is correct.’ This is known as ‘square one’.

However, to repeat what I said earlier, it doesn’t actually matter for these purposes whether evolution is right or not. What matters is that creationism is false, refuted. That much of the refuting evidence is also the stuff that supports evolution is a secondary matter. Even if evolution were incorrect, creationism cannot step into the theory-vacuum, because it has already been shown to be wrong.

Ah, again you see, that was mentioned too. On the ‘courtesy’ matter, I suggested in my page 2 post that he do a search for Tricia. If he had, he’d have found the thread (the only one started by her): Evolution a religion?. We were all nice as pie to her, because she didn’t insist, rant, twist, deny or argue that black’s merely off-white: she asked questions. So again, LWF was either not reading, or taking from posts what he expected, not what was there.

Meanwhile, we’ve put up with (or not) such matters as recapitulation, abiogenesis, quote-mining and lack of transitionals; claims that creation scientists are real scientists, evolutionists are divided and implicitly hence that evolution is uncertain, and that our arguments are irrational, and choice little phrases such as:
and

All of which is standard creationist fare. So I think he’s gotten off rather lightly.

It will be interesting to see this alleged rationality of LWF’s displayed in future.

Cheers, DT

long winded fool

Evolutionists don't have to lie to show creationism is bad science, but do they ever have to exaggerate, or otherwise deceive the masses unfamiliar with science in order to win public arguments with creationists? I don't think you did this in your example or do this in general, but I do think that some evolutionists do this because, as you pointed out, they fear that otherwise the creationist will get more support from the laymen who fail to recognize ad hominem arguments. There is nothing wrong with pointing out creationist mistakes and there is nothing wrong with pointing out lies if you are sure that they are lies. I think there is something wrong with calling all creationists liars or insulting names and implying that none can be trusted. I think there is something wrong with comparing all creationists intelligence to that of children. I believe these are wrong and dishonest, but sometimes resorting to these irrational arguments can actually convince the emotional layman to side with you, thus strengthening the side of science. Should we stomp out the unscientific and illogical using any means necessary? Might the outcome be better if we do? If we hold ourselves to rules and moral code when the enemy doesn't, are we taking a risk that the enemy will win? Creationism may never be science, but is it possible that it will result in the massive stunting of scientific progress if it becomes more widely accepted? If so, are we justified in abandoning our code of reason and rules of logic in front of our children in order to sway the masses to our side and eliminate this dangerous unscientific theory? Is this unscientific theory more or less dangerous to our children than scientists using mud-slinging tactics in order to match dishonest-but-charismatic creationists.

Quite an important question in the religion vs. science debate/battle. As in all wars, it is a race to see who can get the biggest advantage. We assume reason and logic are an advantage, yet when the prize is the majority vote and the majority are not subject to reason or logic, the advantage becomes who can strike the biggest emotional chord. The elimination of reason and logic from the equation puts creationism and evolutionism on equal grounds. Now, whomever has the most experience getting people to believe what they want them to believe has the advantage. A scary prospect. What should we do? Work on our ability to appeal to the public with loaded arguments and emotional rhetoric? Or attempt to prevent the public from falling for eloquent, well-presented-but-irrational arguments? Though the last sounds better, is it feasible? We certainly can't do both, since we can't teach people to be reasonable while using unreasonable arguments against creationists. I guess the question is: Can evolution beat creationism without manipulating the layman? If not, is it worth fighting for? It seems that humanity is not yet ready to abandon religion and instinct for logic and reason. If this is the case, and evolution out muscles creationism in the minds of the people, will evolution and science be any less of a religion than creationism and Christianity? Do we have any reason to believe that eliminating traditional religion and indoctrinating science will bring people out of their instincts and into reason? Or will evolutionary science be the next "religion," defended by any means necessary from its detractors?

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

--- Martin Luther

What harm indeed...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Daggah
LWF,

Please answer me this. What are your opinions of Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, and Jonathan Wells? Do you know anything about them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know little about them. They are mostly young earth creation scientists who I believe are mistaken in most of their assumptions. I read a book on evolution by Hank Hanegraaf lent to me by an old earth creationist friend. I went through and highlighted all the logical errors and commented on most of them. I concluded that he too was mistaken both on his assumptions and his application of the scientific method.

Doubting Didymus

You suggest that evolutionists exaggerate and deceive to win public debates. I demand that you prove it.

I hope you are not referring to simple insults? Because I'm afraid "all creationists are wrong. All creationists are incapable of scientific research into the evolution/creation debate" are not exaggerations.

Question: is your only problem with abraisive evolutionist personalities?

long winded fool

Then what is the difference if I say: "All evolutionists are afraid of Jesus and don't want to accept responsibility for immoral actions. Hitler was an evolutionist, therefore the purpose of evolution is to excuse immoral behavior." Are these merely insults aimed at the theory of evolution and not ridiculous exaggerations? If I can point out someone who believes in evolution and uses it to excuse genocide, how is this logically different than you pointing out someone who believes creationism who is "incapable of scientific research?" Are all creationists wrong about the same things? If not, then isn't it irrational to use a young earth creation theory to refute an old earth creation theory? And isn't it irrational to use a known liar who subscribes to a twisted interperetation of evidence to discredit a broad, multi-branching theory? If not, then I use Hitler as my proof that evolution is evil.

Doubting Didymus

Then I will show you evidence to the contrary, something you seem to be studiously avoiding.

Such a person does not exist. Evolution, when properly understood, does not justify killing any more than the obsevation that lions kill antelopes does. Thus, the difference is that you would be wrong about evolution, while the suggestion that creationists can not do scientific research into the feild of creation/evolution is supported by the fact that no creationist work in said feild has ever appeared in any scientific journal. In short, I would be right and you would be wrong, and the EVIDENCE would prove it. You don't have to take my word for it. You can look at the evidence yourself.

That would be irrational, yes. Luckily I don't do it, and neither does anyone else. The sweeping claim I make is not: "creationists are all wrong because they all believe a young earth". It is "creationists are wrong about every claim they make in the creation/evolution debate". I don't target straw men, I target each and every claim creationists make. They have never been right about anything ever, period. Note that this obviously does not mean that an old earth creationist is wrong about the age of the earth, only those claims they make that contradict evolution (or chemistry, or geology, or all the other sciences they contradict). Remember this?:

x
y=notx
:. not y

See? any claim that contradicts x is wrong, GIVEN THAT x is right. The issue in my argument is always the truth of evolution, and my argument depends entriely apon said truth. Now if you doubt evolution, I can certainly expand my argument to accomodate you. If we can just extablish here that I am at least justified in my claims about creationists given that evolution is true, then we can afterward debate evolution at leisure.

I do not claim that all creationists are liars. I DO claim that all creationists are mistaken. This applies to every single creationist, not just a Few Bad Men.

long winded fool

"Creationists are proven liars, therefore anything a creationist says about creationism is either a lie or is ignorance born from an inability to do scientific research." This is an ad hominem argument. You're also showing a lack of objectivity when you demand proof of things that most would consider a priori. All I need to do is find one person who calls himself an evolutionist who uses ad hominem arguments (like yourself or Darwin's Terrier for example) to prove that what I say is true.

I'm getting tired of the demands for proof of mistakes in the theory of evolution. Here is an evolution scientist talking about the problems of irreducible complexity.

Cohen, Jon, "Getting All Turned Around Over the Origins of Life on Earth," Science, vol. 267 (March 3, 1995), pp. 1265-1266.

"Why do the sugar molecules in DNA and RNA twist to the right in all known organisms? Similarly, all of the amino acids from which proteins are formed twist to the left. The reason these molecules have such uniform handedness, or 'chirality,' is not known, but there is no shortage of theories on the subject. And, as was clear at a recent meeting on the topic in Los Angeles, there is also no shortage of passion, which is understandable, because the question of homochirality speaks to the mother of all scientific mysteries: the origin of life." p. 1265

"The meeting participants did agree on one thing: Homochirality--the total predominance of one chiral form, or 'enantiomer'--is necessary for present-day life because the cellular machinery that has evolved to keep organisms alive and replicating, from microorganisms to humans, is built around the fact that genetic material veers right and amino acids veer left." p. 1265

"One division came over a question that resembles the chicken-or-the-egg riddle: What came first, homochirality or life? Organic chemist William Bonner, professor emeritus at Stanford University, argued that homochirality must have preceded life." p. 1265

"Bonner argued that homochirality is essential for life because without it, genetic material could not copy itself. Specifically, studies have shown that the two complementary strands of genetic material that make up DNA cannot bind with each other if they are in a 'racemic' mixture, a state in which there is an equilibrium of left-handed and right-handed enantiomers."p. 1265

There are two positions in this debate. One of the evolutionists' arguments is most likely wrong. Therefore we have a mistaken evolutionist. Most of you don't have a problem with the reality that evolutionists make mistakes, so this is for those that claim to need proof that evolution is not fundamentally and doctrinally infallible. This argument between evolutionists proves nothing except the fact that it's not perfect. If you claim you already knew this, then why did you demand proof and examples? The only motive I can think of for demanding proof of an axiom you accept is to test my intelligence. The only motive for testing my intelligence I can think of is to determine how you can best win the argument. The only motive for testing your opponent's intelligence before you argue, when winning the argument is your goal, is do determine how you will argue, i.e. what ad hominem arguments you will use, if any, and what personal qualities, such as intelligence, you will attack to weaken their position. You seem to think that ad hominem arguments are impossible if your conclusion is true. Your conclusion doesn't matter. "Anyone who doesn't believe in gravity is a lying idiot," is an ad hominem argument. To a reasoning person, this is no argument and invokes skepticism of your ability to rationally judge the situation, thereby putting gravity and no-gravity beliefs on equal ground in regards to your destructive argument. The same goes for evolution. I attest that it is you and evolutionists like you who weaken evolution and thereby increase the undecided on the issue.

In other words you Doubting Didymus are all the proof I need. I'll try to break my argument down to even simpler terms:

We both subscribe to the theory of evolution. We both believe that whatever inconsistencies appear will be resolved in the future. You believe that evolution is absolutely true and irrefutable. You also believe that this should be obvious to any intelligent person. You use this as an excuse for ad hominem arguments. I tell you that you ought not to do this. You tell me to prove evolution is false or that creationism is scientific, which I obviously cannot do, nor have any inclination to try, being an evolutionist.

Do you see the miscommunication here?

Albion

Well, yes and no (how's that for a useful answer?). Creationists are all wrong at the most fundamental level of the nature of science. All creationism that I've ever come across is based on the notion that the universe can only be explained if divine acts of special creation are invoked and that those acts, while being miraculous in the sense of not being natural processes, can still be "proved" by the scientific method. The twisting of the scope and definition of science itself is a lie on which the entire creationist movement is based.

When creationists disagree about details, then they're obviosuly not wrong about the same things. It's always helpful to focus your reply in the same place as the creationist is doing (biblical literacy for yecs, philisophy for IDists and so on), but it still always comes down to the argument that evolution implies atheism/materialism and that God the Designer has to be included in the scientific method, and I don't think we should let the details of the flavour of creationism overwhelm the fundamentals.

Daggah

Well let me fill you in a bit here:

Carl Baugh: young earth creationist responsible for the dinosaur footprint hoax in Texas. Lied about his credentials. Still defends the hoax (and runs a creationism museum near it if I recall correctly) even though it's been disproven.

Kent Hovind: also lied about his credentials. His "doctorate" is from Patriot University, which is a degree mill. Compared to any real dissertation, his is a joke. Also a habitual liar, it would seem. His debate tactics mainly involve making numerous false claims to the point that his opponent hasn't the time or resources to refute them all, and ends up looking bad.

Duane Gish: also uses that debate tactic. In fact, some call it the "Gish Gallop." Some of his arguments have been disproven to the point that even he admits that they were in error, but even after his error is pointed out to him, he will repeat said faulty argument in a debate.

Jonathan Wells: His book, "Icons of Evolution," was full of dishonest claims. He's also been caught dead in his tracks over the recent experiments and research regarding hox genes.

Oh, and let's not forget the general habit of creationists regarding quotes of evolutionists. Misquote after misquote has been debunked here and elsewhere. Steven J. Gould even once complained about how creationists have twisted his words out of context.

Asha'man

I know you read my post earlier, you made a nice comment about it. I think we both agree that there are no valid creationist arguments, they are all basically bunk.

That doesn’t make such statements an ad hominem argument, it makes it the simple truth. Either the creationist is inventing a lie wrapped in scientific terms, or they are repeating that lie in ignorance.

If every creationist argument is a lie, then it’s perfectly valid to say so. An ad hominem argument is attacking the person rather than their argument, this seems to be a simple statement that the argument is bogus, and that the presenter should know better.