Asha'man

The problem you aren’t seeing is that every single person who has come to the II E/C forum in support of creationism has had nothing but ignorance and lies to support their position. Every. Single. One.

They come here talking about thermodynamics, and we demonstrate how the earth is not a closed thermodynamic system.

They come here talking about randomness, and we demonstrate how selection is the exact opposite of random.

They come here talking about a lack of transitional fossils, and we show them multiple transitional sequences.

They come here talking about intelligent design, and we demonstrate how the designer has multiple personalities and does sloppy work.

They come here talking about irreducible complexity, and we show them how their example system was built from simpler systems.

They come here to talk about mutations, and we demonstrate that they don’t really understand DNA.

They come here with quotes from scientists, and we post the entire paragraph that shows the deliberate misquoting.


If there are any valid objections to Evolution, they have never been presented here. It has been ignorance (mostly) and lies (sometimes) every single time.

It’s like the Fermi paradox for aliens: If there are any people with valid evidence for Creationism, why aren’t they here? In this case, the answer is simple: there is no valid evidence for Creationism.

Now this may change next year, or even tomorrow. Someone may find some new evidence. But until that happens, there is only one reasonable conclusion to make, and most everybody here is comfortable with that conclusion.

long winded fool

I have nothing against an evolutionist pointing out where a creationist is ignorant of the facts. It's where they sometimes go from there that makes them look bad, and consequently, makes evolution look bad to creationists.

See? This is a responsible evolutionist. He makes a reasonable conclusion, similar to the Fermi paradox. He is not arguing for the rejection of creationism based on the integrity of creationists, he argues for the validity of evolution based on the fact that it hasn't been refuted. If creationism rejects evolution, then it is a less scientific theory. His arguments are logical, and an honest creationist would learn a great deal from them. Whether any creationists are honest or learn from evolutionists is irrelevant and neither I, nor anyone else, have the authority to claim this one way or another. His own intellectual integrity is all he worries about, and it shows in his wisely presented argument. While I know that a great many evolutionists are responsible in this way, the irresponsible ones add fuel to those ignorant of the facts. It is them alone who I remind of their own ignorance.

My client is guilty. I plead for constructive rehabilitation instead of destructive punishment, and I do so for the evolutionists' sake more than the creationists'. Follow the example on this board. Let them win the arguments by being irrational. Don't take the bait. Any honest listener, creationist or evolutionist, will perceive the truth.

Albion

LWF, you sound as if you spend entirely too much of your time in an alternate reality where people of reason and goodwill spend most of their time putting forward positive arguments to support their own positions. That isn't how creationist debate works. Most of the time, unless someone is really frustrated, we don't accuse the creationists on this board of lying, we simply accuse them of turning up here, on a non-theist board full of scientists and people with scientific training and knowledge, and repeating creationist arguments without making the slightest attempt to check them first. The people who make those arguments are the liars; the people who are taken in by them are not. The creationists here are ignorant of the facts; their teachers on the creationist sites are lying about the facts.

The problem is, creationists accept whatever they read on these creation ministry sites and in the books because they're written by Christians defending Jesus against the hordes of godless evolutionists who are trying to destroy society and claim their children for Satan. These people don't set foot in science class at school until they've had years of creationist propaganda thrown at them in church and at Sunday School ever since they were too young to remember. They come to science class primed with the information that evolution is a satanic lie and that athesists are bad people who are so deep in Satan's grip that they can't be trusted to say anything true, and they've been told it by people who have been in the position of trusted authorities (parents, pastors, visiting lecturers from creation ministries). We can point out again and again that the creationist versions of the second law of thermodynamics and radiometric dating and the fossil record and Stephen Jay Gould's opinion on the evidence for punctuated equilibrium bear little resemblance to reality, and we come up against the attitude that, well, a godly person told them something different and godly people tell the truth. We can suggest to them that they look up the stuff themselves - they can go back to original research or get a copy of the book that was misquoted and read what Prof Gould really did say - but that's a lot of work, the original papers are usually too technical, and why should they do that because a godly person told them something different, and godly people tell the truth. Look at the debate with Paul on one of the other threads. He's making the usual creationist arguments, and he's being asked to provide hard evidence for his position, and so far he isn't doing it. What else can people do?


Nobody here is arguing for rejection of creationism based on the integrity of creationists. People are arguing for the rejection of creationism as a scientific theory simply because it isn't one. The problem is that most of the creationists here don't come with their own arguments, they come primed with arguments from elsewhere, and we have to argue against the authors of those arguments at second hand via the person who brought them here. And those arguments from elsewhere (usually a creationist website) are false arguments, and the reason they're false arguments is that they're based on lies. So we can point out that the arguments on the creationist sites are incorrect, and then we're faced with the question, "Why would they be incorrect? What reason would these good Christians have to produce websites full of incorrect arguments?" And the answer is that the aim of the creationist sites is to discredit mainstream science because they have their own alternative which is incompatible with science. The answer can't be that the creationist sites have just got it wrong by accident, not when it happens on every single page. At some point it has to be said that the creationist arguments are deliberate distortions and that the creationist aims are political, because that's what they are.


His arguments are logical but they're also grounded firmly in the fact that the creationists who come here, however honest and well intentioned themselves, are unintentionally repeating lies and distortions and misquotes they've picked up from creationist sites. Once in a while creationists will see that this argument isn't about science and will decide to check the science independently. Then they end up, like GeoTheo, becoming theistic evolutionists (and being kicked out of his church for his trouble) or, like someone on another board, sticking with the creationism and rationalising that scientists are atheists and, although they aren't doing it deliberately, they're deluded about the results and are incapable of seeing the TRUTH. In which case, they've at least done their own thinking and hopefully can read the creationist websites with a slightly more critical eye.


I disagree. Not taking the bait is what led to evolution being virtually banned from science classes for decades. If we don't take the bait, the whole of the south and the midwest will be teaching that evolution is just another religion and creationism is mainstream science. Ditto for cosmology, geology, linguistics, you name it. People on the whole are not well enough grounded in critical thinking to know when an argument is rational and when it isn't, and the addition of technical language to scientific discussions only makes things murkier. Professional creationsts are usually skilled in putting their point of view acros to the public - more so than a lot of scientists are - but a slick presentation is not an indication of the worth of the material being presented. The problem is that because of the nature of the subject matter, most people can't make that judgement for themselves. Most people are also not aware that this is really a political argument, not a scientific one.

I think one thing scientists can do is to make the basics of the scientific method clearer to the public, but we're still fighting the general mindset that Chrsitians don't lie, that evolutionists are being controlled by Satan, and that all society's ills can be blamed on evolution turning society away from God. It's amazing that this attitude still has such a grip in an advanced society like this, but there it is.

Jobar

Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, makes the point that the best victory is not defeating your enemy, killing his soldiers, laying his lands to waste, and humiliating his nation before the eyes of the world. No, the best victory is to make your enemy share your aims; that is, to make him your friend.

We can humiliate people who come here defending creationism. There's no real trick to that. If possible, we'd rather teach them where they are mistaken, and the consequences of belief with no evidence- indeed, belief against abundant evidence. Rational people, with average intelligence, normally respond very well to this, and put away the superstition which is creationism.

But lwf, not everyone is rational, or has average intelligence. Sometimes all we can do is defeat them- lay all their arguments to waste and humiliate them in the eyes of the lurkers. Their minds are closed, and their belief in creationism cannot be addressed by rational discourse.

Darwin's Terrier has decided that you are in the 'not rational/ below average intelligence' class. He has stopped trying to make you understand because he thinks you can't or won't.

(He doesn't suffer long winded fools gladly, you might say.)

Me, I'm still not sure about that. I think it possible that you are just not clear on the nature of creationism, and haven't seen how nice we can be when a rational-but-ignorant creationist comes here to talk to us.

Doubting Didymus

I know LWF a little from previous encounters, and I know for a fact that he can be logical. I had thought that fomralising the argument might have helped. Alas, this is yet to be.

A word becomes proper in english simply when it has been used for long enough for people to stop complaining.

Actually, premises can not be 'fallacies'. That is a technical term used to describe a common form of invalidity, which in turn is reserved only for arguments. Validity exists when the conclusion follows inevitably from the premesis granted that the premesis are true. So, if P1 were false my argument would still be valid. It is the soundness of the argument that lwf must challenge. This is what I am expressing by listing the premises he MAY prove false. There can not be a false trichotomy, because my list of premesis is completely inclusive. He may show invalidity, or show falsehood in some of the premises. I have not left any options out. (And if he can show an invalidity here he should notify a critical reasoning journal immediately)

Granted, my entire argument rests mostly on the truth of evolution. Forgive me if I don't shake in my boots. The fourth man built his house apon the truth, and outlasted the stone founded house by an eternity.

We shall see. My response to lwf follows imminently.

long winded fool

A very wise and interesting perception. One I hadn't considered in this thread. What if arguing logically isn't enough to persuade the public opinion? Then this would indeed be a political argument. Whoever tells the voters more of what they want to hear gets the votes. Eloquent and deceptive creationists could theoretically out-debate honest, logical evolutionists and get the teaching of evolution banned from schools. In order to prevent this, evolutionists feel they must be even more eloquent and engage in the same kind of mud-slinging the creationists use in order to sway public opinion in a democracy. While I personally find this dishonest, perhaps I am living in an "alternate reality" if by this you mean I am idealistic. I think Ghandi put it best. "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." I try follow this wise observation, but what are the consequences of this? Arguing honestly might surrender power while mud-slinging might retain it. If every evolutionist believed as I do, evolution might be a forbidden subject in the classroom! Despite this frightening consequence of honesty, I am not prepared to allow a dishonest majority to make me dishonest. While I fear the abandonment of logic and reason that may result if the creationists win, I don't fear it enough to abandon it myself in order to protect it. Perhaps I'm too courageous to argue irrationally because I assume that only rational arguments can breed more rational arguments, or perhaps I am too cowardly to sacrifice rationality so that my children will learn rational scientific theories instead of religious dogma? Is it okay to temporarily sacrifice rationality in order to preserve it for future generations?

An interesting question... Evolution is true. Evolution is currently taught in schools. Some want evolution removed from schools because they disagree with it. They argue dishonestly (logical fallacies like ad hominem and appeal to popularity) but eloquently in order to sway the uninformed public. Those that want evolution taught in schools try to honestly defend it, (without such fallacies) but fail because the uninformed public prefers the dishonest-yet-eloquent arguments of those who oppose it. Should honest evolutionists meet dishonest creationists on their own grounds? Should we use the same dirty and dishonest tricks that the creationists use? Because if we don't, our children might be deprived of the truth of evolution and taught the falsity of creationism. But if we do, we are setting (or maintaining) a precedent of "whatever argument gets the most votes is correct." We don't want our children to accept this anymore than creationism, do we? Isn't this, in fact, why we shun creationism?

I personally stand by my belief that we should never use any matter of deception in our arguments no matter what the outcome and no matter how true the science is that we are defending because doing so would make us the same as the deceptive creationists. But then, I am an idealist.

Doubting Didymus

Actually, if I get technical, I will point out that you are not arguing against my validity, but against my soundness.

That is the informal version. Please concerntrate on my formalised version, which is I grant, essentially the same thing, only more proper. Here it is again:

P1: X - (evolution is true)
P2: Y=Not X - (Creationism is the rejection of evolution)
subC: Therefore Not Y (creationism is false)

No, I am not. I deliberately left that out in the confidence that I can support my premise one. The appropriate permises are supporting premises, which would consist of the evidence for evolution. Those premises are too numerous to list. We can argue the evidence later if you like.

Well spotted, and you are correct. I have not supported my main premise. If you seriously doubt its truth, we may debate the evidence. Would you like to do that? (By the way, my statements are not universal. That part you got wrong.)

Wrong. A premise never needs ALL the possible evidence, else no premise would EVER be satisfactory. A premise only needs satisfactory evidence in support of it, and insufficient evidence against it. These are subjective terms, but I am confident that the evidence in support of evolution is enough to convice the most twisted mind, if only one is fully aware of it. Why should you take my word for it? You shouldn't. If you are truly doubtful of the evidence supporting evolution then there is no place better than here to learn it. When do you want to start?

Again, you rely on my informal version. Please focus on this version:
Given subC1: Creationism (Y) is a falsehood
P3: Believing a falshood is a mistake.
C: Believing Y is a mistake.

False Dilemma, Begging the Question, Composition, Appeal to Popularity, Prejudicial Language.

Pregudicial language is not present in the formal veraion, and it isn't a fallacy anyway. False dilemma is when I have left out other alternatives. In the formal version, I have not. Scratch that one. Begging the question is when the permises assume the conclusion. This may have applied only if my premise was "creationism is a mistake". As it is, that is a subconclusion anyway, independantly supported, and so can not be said to rely on the conclusion. Appeal to popularity (by which I assume you mean the argumentum ad populum, where a conclusion is supposed to be true bacause a lot of people beleive it) is not even faintly suggested in this argument. In fact, my validity follows the vamous form:

p=q
q=r
Therefore p=r

This is a well known valid form, it even has a name, which I have forgotten. (I never could remember the names of these things). You are left with only one option: demonstrate unsoundness (the falsehood of one or more premises). Remembering that "creationism is false" is a subconclusion, the only premise you can attack is P3 "Believing a falsehood is a mistake". I assume that you can not see a problem with that premise? I certainly hope not.

Frankly, the only 'weak' point in this argument is P1, that evolution is true. If you seriously want to argue against this premise, I will be most happy to oblige.

Your suggested that not all creationists are mistaken or liars, right? I ask, demand actually, that you support this. To do this you must demonstrate something, ANYTHING, that a creationist has said about the creation/evolution debate that was not a lie or a mistake. Support your assertion or withdraw it. If this is a straw man, then please tell me what your real argument is.

Doubting Didymus

I agree with this latest post completely. I would never use an illogical argument deliberately and knowingly to further my goals. Luckily, with the truth on your side, you don't have to.

Albion

Well, I'm not sure that they fail, exactly. It's the ones who refuse to take the creationist threat seriously and ignore it who are the real problem because although creationism isn't a genuine scientific threat, it's still a genuine threat in terms of the future of this country in a technological age with a population that doesn't understand basic biology or elementary critical thinking. The people who do respond to creationists are at least letting the public know that there IS a response.

We shouldn't have to. We don't need to lie about creationism to show that it's bad science; they DO have to lie about evolution. The question is, should we be in the business of showing that they resort to lies on a very regular basis? And as far as I'm concerned, if presenting the correct science gets a response along the lines that creationism and evolution are alternative theories with as much scientific support as each other, followed by a reference to a creationist website full of rubbish about radiometric dating or something, then I don't see any problem with pointing out the rubbish and the motives of the people producing it. I remember one time on the BBC board (where they aren't quite as familiar with the tactics of the creationist ministries) when some creationist was throwing around misquotes and claiming on that basis that Niles Eldredge or Colin Patterson or Francis Crick had admitted that they didn't really believe in evolution but were clinging to it because they couldn't stand the thought of Jesus being real or something, I gave those quotes in context (which made more than a little difference) and mentioned the existence of the ICR booklet full of these quotations, called "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them." A couple of lurkers decloaked to express what sounded like genuine indignation that there were websites that would do such a thing. Yet I don't think I stooped to the depths that the creationists did (you're welcome to disagree, of course) because I was simply pointing out the facts of how those quotes originated, and I wasn't lying about any of it.


Well, I think this is where we need to be very grateful to scientists like Ken Miller and Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan who take (or, sadly, took) time away from their work to write books and participate in debates and try to bring the science to all the nonscientists out there. Like Granny Weatherwax said, "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." There are still too many scientists who think that public outreach is irrelevant, and to an extent they have to share the blame if the public is then so ignorant that it's receptive to pseudo-science.

Daggah

Long Winded Fool? Hello?