AlanF
Hi Alan... I can see we had similar thoughts. Now, will ThiChi stand his ground and discuss this? Will hooberus ever refute or try to refute the plain simple evidence of a tree that Genesis is utter rot as regards a historical account? I wrote most of this off line before I'd read your post, thus the cross overs.
hooberus
That article on AIG about Scientific American.
In the first paragraph, from "Scientific American was founded by the artist and inventor Rufus Porter (1792?1884), who thought that science glorified the creator God..." too "the most recent two have diametrically opposed their founder?s original vision." in the second full paragraph after the quote, the writer of the article is using a combination of Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the original intent of the magazine was better), Argumentum ad verecundiam (regarding the original editor) and Argumentum ad hominem against the last two editors.
The writer of the article, wihout considering one fact regarding the theories being contrasted, seeks to create through fallacious reasoning an environment where the view he opposes is automatically assumed by the reader to be one of less worth or validiity.
Didn't you get enough of that kind of thing in the Borg hooberus?
From then on it gets even worse; the stuff about Forrest Mims doesn't mention;
- that he does not list any papers on creation on his website,
- nor does he mention either the words 'creation' or 'creationism' on his website
.... so much for his own confidence in his abilities or qualifications as a Creationist...
- that his educational background is a Bachelor of Arts, Texas A&M University (major in government with minors in English and history)
- that although he is an undoubted top rank scientist he has no experience or qualifications in the biological sciences, let alone in evolutionary biology
In prior conversation about the 'wood' at the Three Sisters you more or less conceded this that AiG can be sloppy with the way they present evidence and link to important information about claimed evidence.
Now, if I was interviewing a potential colmunist who was an expert on antique furniture who told me that (despite lack of experienece or qualifications) he had decided that almost every person who studied Shakespeare was wrong, I'd worry about their judgement.
Someone being able to oppose the conclusion reached by tens of thousands people whove devoted careers to the subject, let alone willing to reject hordes of evidence without actually having any real claim to knowledge of the subject would indicate their judgement would also be swayed by matters other than the facts supporting a theory.
AiG make someone probably not getting a job because they considered themselves competent to express a firm opinion on fields they had no real knowledge of (making them a liability as a columnist . "How much did you make up or guess this week?" is not something the editor of SA wants to ask memebers of his staff!) out to be discrimination rather than good judgement on the part of the interviewer.
When will you quit with AiG? Can't you see how they twist stuff to pursue their faith-based agenda? Truth need not hide.
Now, the AiG article objects to this;
? but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution?s truth beyond reasonable doubt.
... saying
This is a debate tactic known as ?elephant hurling?. This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence,
Impression?! There IS weighty evidence. Go to a museum sometime.
... but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true,
That would be because the same general theory is supported by paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields.
... and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side.
More fallacious argumentation.
But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.
And more hypocracy.... it's a summary argument, and is being criticised for not being a 1,874 page College Biology textbook. What Creationists seem to fail to discuss is how THE SAME GENERAL THEORY is supported by paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields, and yet how Creationism finds fault with various findings of each of these fields, the extent of fault-finding depending on the species of creationism (YEC, OEC, ID). AiG object to a statement I am happy to defend point-for-point but make no comment on how their OWN model fails to fit ANY mainstream science!
But anyway, the actual points the article is responding come later...
The first three points AiG fundamentally agrees with Scientific American on.
Scientific American's Point 4 objects to this classic Creationist characterisation;
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
Another Argumentum ad verecundiam, e.g. Fred Hoyle thinks x, so all the people who, unlike Fred, are actually evolutionary biologists or some other relevent discipline who disagree with him are wrong.
AiG then dance round the same hat the Dubbies do, and try to make it look like there's a silent majority of scientists who support Creationism but who are too scared to speak. They don't support this assertation in any way with facts, as there are none to support it.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
AiG's argument is very twisted here. The disagreements amongst evolutionary biologists on detail underline the general acceptance of the general theory, as this is not generally disputed except by those who favour an unprovable supernatural mechanism. The response to this point on AiG says;
Quoting Gould was the perfectly honorable strategy of using a hostile witness.
Perfectly honourable? Well, if Bert thought Tracy killed Sid, would you call him to the stand because he said it was with a candlestick instead of a hammer? The difference of opinions in some areas doesn't dispute the 'murder', it disputes the details. Yet such disagreeemnts are presented in a light which casts doubt on the 'murder'.
And AiG's response to the Scietific American comment on this fail to engage with the above point I made about the same general theory being supported by many scientific disciplines whereas Creationist's finds fault with them ALL, plus loads of other scietific disciplines which again Creationists have to disagree with to one extent or the other.
AiG agrees with point 6.
Point 7 they thrash around over, ending up answering a scientific arguement with a presuppositionalistic one entwined with an ad hom; Scientists support evolution because they don't want to believe in god. Ranks right up there with the 'baby and the bathwater' for ignorance. These people have assumed they are right and modern science is wrong. Everything flows from that assumption, not from any sincere and unbiased examination of the facts.
Point 8 they ignore natural selection as a mechanism that explains the genetic content of current animals, but there are so many misconceptions imbedded in this part we could discuss that alone for days.
Point 9 is the old 2nd Law chesnut which AIG admit cannot be understood by many without specific training. They then seem to engage in a semantic debate to change the Law's meaning to suit them. They also fail to mention that amongst those who are trained and educated in the physics there is general agreeement that viewing the 2nd law as something that falsifies evolution is utter rot.
Point 10 is responded to by saying it's a mis-statement of creationist theory; I've heard it enough from Creationists to realise if this is so then many Creationists don't know enough about their own beliefs to argue them.
Point 11 is again an argument often presented by Creationisst, but AiG thinks they're wrong too... and Point 12, likewise is a classic oft-repeated creationist arguement that AiG also say is wrong. They also seek to create an impression that there is general agreements amongst Creationists ("See What is the Biblical creationist model?"), when in fact there is not, with the quasi-literalist OEC view contradicting the hyper-literalist YEC as much as the theistic ID view contradicts the quasi-literalistic OEC view.
Point 13 is again an oft-stated Creationist claim which AiG answer in part with Charles Darwins's views about the fossil record. A bit like answering a question about fuel cells in cars with a quote from the inventor of the internal combustion engine. AiG take the opinion on someone of the fossil record in it's very infancy as a reason why the vastly expanded fossil record of today cannot be relied upon. Utter rot.:
Point 14 hypocritically fails to address the presupositiuonalist belief in the existence of an entity without explanation, proof or cause, yet says that complex designs require a complex designer. An obvious and deep contradiction.
14. (argument by design) and 15 (irreducable complexity) are major discussion points in themselves, but the SA summaries fairly represent many Creationist's opinions. AiG's responses are rather dumb really;
Indeed, Gould agreed that Darwin was writing to counter Paley. This is another way of saying that he had an anti-theistic agenda
So, he's saying Darwin had an anti-theistic agenda, and then;
?see Darwin?s real message: Have you missed it? and my review of The Essence of Darwinism. This doesn?t stop many Churchian allies ?tugging the forelock? at every pronouncement made by him and his God-hating successors, who in return regard them as contemptuously as Lenin regarded his ?useful idiot? allies in the West.
... he makes his anti-atheist agenda very clear. Wouldn't it be nice to discuss the facts alone without fallacious arguments?
Oh, Kansas 1993 is something which you can search for. It's not even my own country's history. But AiG is partial, biased, fallacious; if that's your source of information well...
trumangirl
Any questions, ask.
"schools don't need to teach all the mythical accounts, just need to mention that there are some serious objections to evo."
Yes, but do they present the ID objections? The Biblical YEC or OEC objections? The Islamic Creationist objections?
Do they counter the teaching of sexual equality with mention of the opposite view, or the teaching of racial equality with mention of the opposite view? How about the views of a flat earth of a geocentric universe? Or teach how the prosecuters at the Salam trials weren't that bad as maybe they did get some witches? If so, a mention or detail? If so how much?
Just cause something has an opinion about a subject doesn't mean it should be taught.
JCanon would ask his Messiahness be taught!
Oroborus
Personally, I think that this is one area that Jehovah's Witnesses have stumbled upon that is probably closer to the real TRUTH, even if they are yet far off base. What I speak of is the JW view that the universe was created over millenia of millenia of years, that the earth, solar system, etc. are many billions of years old, that the basic order of life appeared (via Creation) on Earth over many millions of years and that Mankind is a very late arrival to the party.
It's not a JW idea, just one they borrowed. However the "mankind is a very late arrival to the party" bit is not supported by the evidence as man goes back way longer than Biblical time spans allow. However, you say that "On most Creationists: The vast majority of these are ignorant.", and then precede to duplicate many classic 'Creationist' errors assumptions and presuppositions. If you want I can go through them one-by-one.
![[Two views of abiogenesis]](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)