FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 06/12/2002 3:00:11 PM PDT by Gladwin
|
Claims |
|
| A. God of the Gaps/Unsolved Mystery | Assumes that if science cannot PRESENTLY explain something, there is no natural explanation. |
| B. Personal Incredulity | Assumes that their inability to comprehend or understand how something could have occurred naturally is proof that it did not. |
| C. Post-It Note God/Morris Effect | Gives a supernatural deity credit for a natural event, or "well, god CUDDA done it that way !" "There is no observational fact imaginable that cannot, one way or |
| D. Scriptural Assault | Use of bible verses as 'evidence'. Usually either as threats, or bribes. Also includes such gems as : - "Jesus Loves You" - "I'll Pray For You" - "One day you will have to answer to Jesus Christ Himself, and then it won't be so funny when he throws your unrepentant soul into Hell !" - "One day, when you're burning in Hell, you'll remember this conversation, and that I warned you !" |
| E. Discredited 'evidences', Hoaxes and errors. | Otherwise known as PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Includes such things as the moon dust argument, the vapor canopy 'hypothesis', and the decaying c-factor hypothesis. These 'evidences' have been refuted (see Talk Origins for them), but creationists keep using them anyway. Things like Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and the Lady Hope Story fit also fit in here. Somehow the FACT that scientists were the ones that figured out these were mistakes or hoaxes is always missed by creationists. Science works by correcting its errors, so hoaxes and frauds usually don't last very long. |
| F. Out of Context Quotes | THE classic creationist technique. If, at any time, you see them claim that an 'evolutionist' says that evolution is false, you can be pretty certain the words have been carefully edited (like Darwin's 'Eye Quote', his 'Transitional forms should be everywhere' quote ... ). |
| G. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Arguments | The idea that evolution somehow violates this inviolable law of nature. In truth, it doesn't (in fact, life itself works in accordance to this law). Assumes that organization/complexity cannot form unless directed by some sort of program (false). |
| H. (Mis)Information Theory | A relatively recent argument, it claims things like 'gains of genetic information are impossible', or 'mutations have never been observed'. Both statements are, of course, false. |
| I. Absolutism/Burden of Proof | Assumes: 1) if you are not 100% certain about how something happened, then you don't have a clue about how it happened, or 2) anything not proven true is automatically false (or, anything not proven false is automatically true). |
| J. Denial = Refutation ex cathedra arguments Zeppelin Ego |
The first two assume that just because the creationist has stated something, it is automatically true without the requirement for supporting evidence. ('Your statement is false. Now that I have refuted you, you MUST accept that my ideas are correct !') Zeppelin Ego - when opponent's ego is huge, bloated, full of gas, and explodes into flame with the least provocation (tends to go along with #Q - see below). |
| K. Semantic Games | Opponent will expect you to conform to HIS definition of words, not their REAL, currently accepted definitions. Example : claims that evolution MUST be only single point mutations (as in the Modern Synthesis - 1942 to 1982). Also when evidence is redefined out of existence (ie, the invention of the 'dichotomy' between 'apparent' specified complexity vs 'real' specified complexity when it was demonstrated that a computer program using mutation/selection could produce a sentence exhibiting specified complexity. Sadly, without knowing the history of a process, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell the 'difference' between 'real' and 'apparent' specified complexity.) |
| L. Number Games | Use of carefully selected growth rates to 'show' that the entire Earth's population could've been generated by 4 couples a few thousand years ago. Also the One Sided Equation - most processes on Earth are in equilibrium (there are just as many factors increasing something as decreasing it). A One Sided Equation ignores one or the other side of the equation - seen in the Helium escape argument, or erosion/build up of sediment type of arguments for a young Earth. |
| M. Transitional Form Complaints | They either claim: 1) 'There ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS !!' (false), or 2)'Those fossils are the WRONG KIND OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS, AND SO AREN'T REAL TRANSITIONALS !!' The 'fossils are fully formed whatevers' type arguments are included in here as well. |
| N. Conspiracy Theories | Two major types : - "All scientists/evolutionists KNOW that evolution is false, but they hide/distort the evidence to get people away from God !" - "Every field of science kneels before the altar of Evolutionary Theory !" - geologists must check with evolutionists so they know how old to say the Earth is, for example. |
| O. Cartoon Theory of Evolution | Evolution is just the study and explanation of how living things change over time. The Cartoon Theory of Evolution includes Cosmogony (origin of the universe), Nucleosynthesis (origin of substances heavier than hydrogen), Abiogenesis (origin of life from organic compounds) - from the Chick Tract 'Big Daddy' most likely. |
| P. Argument from Weak/Faulty Analogy | Hearkens back to Paley's Watchmaker analogy (the "irreducibly complex systems" of Behe is the modern incarnation of this). Assumes that if two things have at least one thing in common, they have all things in common (designed objects are complex. Life is complex. Therefore, life is designed), and others of this ilk. |
| Q. Argument from Insult (direct and implied) Armchair Psychology |
Assumes that you can make someone accept your claims by calling them names (direct), or questioning their mental faculties ('you can't possibly believe that fish can turn into men !!' - implying you are stupid, for example. You would have to be to fall for that olde strawman argument). Armchair psychology is when they diagnose a mental condition for you - |
| R. Argument from Misplaced Authority | When you hear someone quoting an astrophysicist who states that 'evolution is too improbable', for instance (like the olde "Tornado thru a junkyard building a 747 !" argument). Expertise in ONE field does NOT grant expertise in ALL fields. |
| S. Argument from Improbability 'Evolution is ALL chance !!'. |
Usually seen in abiogenesis arguments, this makes the assumption that a modern protein had to be made in just one attempt. But, since natural selection selects more successful variants, it can make improbable combinations occur by working sequentially (several small improvements). |
| T. Martyr Syndrome Histrionics Emotional Appeals |
Creationist will claim they are being discriminated against, or called names ONLY because they are creationist/have faith (actually, they are being called names because they are using lame arguments, and excessive use of Zeppelin Ego). Schopenhauer's Maxim fits in here as well (the 'All great truths pass through three stages - they are ridiculed, then they are violently opposed, then they are accepted as obvious'). Also includes such rancid fare as "Hitler/Lenin/Mao and other nasty |
| U. Mobile Goalposts Backpedaling |
Occurs when the creationist asks for something, you give it to him, and then he claims that's NOT what he REALLY wanted, or that it REALLY doesn't qualify as evidence for your position (without clearly explaining why). |
| V. "No Eyewitnesses !!" - type argument | Claims that since no one was there to physically observe the event, we can't REALLY be sure it happened. Or, like using spectroscopy to determine what elements are in an interstellar gas cloud is invalid because no one has gone out there to physically retrieve a sample of the interstellar gas. |
| W. Misuse and Misunderstandings of the ToE 'Evolution is RACISM/ATHEISM/RELIGION !!" |
Oddly assumes that since evolution is based on assumptions, and religion is based on assumptions, that evolution is therefore a religion (ie, accepted as true WITHOUT evidence). Also assumes that one must give up God to accept the validity of evolution (false). Since the ToE is purely a biological theory that explains how life changes over time, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about morals, ethics, theology, philosophy, or cultural development, which is why claims like "the end product of the PHILOSOPHY of evolutionISM is the erosion of morality !!" belong in this category. |
| X. Ignorance of Science and its Methods | When someone demands that science PROVE something, or that 'evolution is NOT scientific', score one in #X. Science deals with EVIDENCE, not PROOF. Evolution is scientific because it does make testable and falsifiable predictions (like, 'what would we EXPECT to find in the fossil record if descent with modification were true ?') Also claims that fly in the face of known physics, chemistry, geology, etc go in here as well. |
| Y. Fallacy of the General Rule | 'If sedimentation can occur quickly under these conditions, it therefore can occur quickly in ALL conditions !!' is the prime example. This fallacy occurs when a rule is applied too broadly (The Mount St. Helen's example of a young earth and polystrate fossil formation are other standard creationist fares). |
| Z. Radiometric and Dating Whines | Common enough to warrant separation from 'Ignorance of Science and Its Methods'. Just baseless complaints/questions about the validity of known and verified dating methods. |
| 1. Muddled logic and other fallacies | The 'miscellaneous' category. Things like Special Pleading ('all things require a cause - EXCEPT GOD'), Circular Arguments (the statement you are trying to prove is one of the assumptions - 'God created things. Things exist. Therefore, God exists !), and Non Sequitor statements (have no relevance to the topic at hand - like bible verses discussing morality when the topic was natural selection). |
| 2. Mind Games and Rhetorical Tricks | Includes Projection (you keep changing all of his definitions of words BACK to what they really are, and he accuses you of redefining words to suit your argument), White Knight (rushing to the aid of a fellow creationist just because he/she is a creationist), going on incoherent rants, and 'just plain NUTS !!'.
|
It's kind of the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 effect - by turning the 'debate' into a game, creationist arguments don't seem as monotonously painful as usual (plus the fact that everyone playing will read every single word - for the very next thing the creationist says could WIN IT ALL!!)
Burden Of Proof Fallacy:
the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case. There may be two problems here. First, the arguer claims priority - but why is it him who wins by default? And second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. A counter-argument is the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Argument By Question:
asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes?" Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some extent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it. Variants are the rhetorical question, and the loaded question, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
You forgot "Yes or No?"
BTW...what the heck is this post about?
FMCDH
I agree with you there, IMO. Still, it's a huge leap to go from there to saying that he never does.
Why don’t we just put the ID card on the table.
Note: for the many who will probably not even read the link, just mark your “Dembski” spot now.
IMHO, I think God (that is not the Deity's name, you know) does intervene, sometimes in major ways. For myself, I'm not going to say that he did not directly intervene in the creation of people-kind.
Generally agree, especially in regard to cosmology and natural History.
Possible/likely exceptions (no evidence, just my gut):
- Big Bang
- End of the Planck Era
- First life
As to human History, since I believe that man is a pivotal goal of Creation, His intervention with humanity is ongoing, but usually sublime.
Miracles and unequivocal Divine interventions are rare.
W may catch as many Evos as Crevos.
What is the ‘one’ major item that causes you to doubt the existence of an ‘Intelligent Designer’?
There's another form of this: the shifting of the dividing line between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". As scientists discover more and more extreme examples of genetic or morphological change within populations, creationists change the definition of "microevolution". In recent years it's gone from covering only changes in the relative frequency of brown vs. white moths, to covering the separation of closely related species. No matter how dramatically evolution progresses in the future, they'll be able to say, "oh, that's just microevolution."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.