Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[Dimensio]

Until somebody convinces me that no more newcomers will ever see it for the first time.

So do you honestly think that because evolution might have led some to come up with the concept of "Social Darwinism" -- which is attempting to apply a biological system to a social order, which is never a good idea -- biological evolution is somehow falsified?

[general_re]

Ok, I may not be reading what you said correctly but you'd re-write the article because you think it's trying to set up an argument for evolution instead of allowing people to make their own decision?

I think what I'm getting at is that it tries to cast arguments by non-experts as being fallacious, in and of themselves. It comes perilously close to saying that, unless you yourself are a bona-fide expert, it is inappropriate to pass along the opinions of others that you find convincing. The problem is, that should apply equally well to arguments for evolution, as well. When you look at it in light of the stated goal of the article - to refute creationism - it strikes me as an attempt to separate one set of arguments out for special treatment.

Consider me, after all. I am not a molecular biologist, nor am I a biochemist, although I took several semesters worth of courses on same in college. I am hardly an expert in this field, so I must defer to those who are experts. But following the logic of this article, it is inappropriate for me to cite someone else as an authority unless I have a 100% complete, soup-to-nuts understanding of the subject myself. But that's silly - that renders me unqualified to discuss a whole load of things, by that standard.

Like I said, this article goes too far. Simply presenting someone else's opinion is not, in and of itself, a fallacy. It is only when we try to make an authority in one field into an expert in some other field that we are guilty of a fallacy. As an example, it is perfectly appropriate for me to cite Richard Dawkins as an expert in evolutionary theory, and to refer to his thoughts and opinions on same. However, it is a fallacious argument to conclude that, because he is an expert in one field, his expertise extends to other subjects - his arguments on the nature and non-existence of God, for example. In that respect, his opinions are no more or less valid than anyone else's and to cite him as an authority in such an argument would be fallacious. Similarly, we may conclude that Jerry Falwell is an expert in Christian theology. But that expertise does not, by itself, give his opinions on the nature and mechanics of evolution any special insight, and therefore it would be inappropriate to give his opinion undue weight when discussing evolution.

[f.Christian]

keep flying--walking...

[Lurking Libertarian]

keep eating cheese--riding mooses--using hyphens

[JediGirl]

While the existence of a God may imply that humans have a purpose, nonexistence need not mean that humans have no purpose.

I should have said that differently. I mean like no purpose as far as religion goes. There being an after-life kinda thing. We would, of course, have a purpose on earth.

[JediGirl]

look, you're missing a great opportunity to witness to me....i even halfway set myself up for it. Good job.

[Dimensio]

There's more to it than that. Evolutionism poisons morality, politics, and science equally.

How? It shouldn't be poisoning anything other than science (and only then if evolution is demonstratably false). It's a biological theory -- applying it to your views of politics or morality is misapplying it; it isn't evolution's fault if it alters how you view morality or politics, it's your own for applying a biological theory to a construct that isn't biology! It's like trying to use gravitational theory to decide what colour car to purchase!

The state of denial you see from official science bastians when cities are discovered beneath the waves off Cuba, under the Antarctic ice, and on Mars, arises from the fact that these things are all incompatible with the uniformitarian/evolutionist paradigm.

I've not seen massive waves of denial about the cities under Cuba, just some dissention -- which is common in science (that's why you have peer review). I've not heard about cities under Antartica or on Mars. Nonetheless, finding cities anywhere doesn't disprove evolution. I cannot fathom how discovering buried "lost cities" would somehow falsify evolution. Archeaology is not biology.

[Britton J Wingfield]

Bump for Chuck Darwin.

[tallhappy]

Some people go around obsessing about trivial stuff.

Maybe sitting around all day obsessing on "Creationsists" seems like a good time to someone.

Why I could not guess.

[f.Christian]

---watch-the-special...

---these ape-people witch doctor NAVIGATORS will get you lost(bad science)---dead(spiritually--physically)!

[Darth Reagan]

Truth is absolute and it will be revealed when the trial is over.

While truth is absolute, it is unfortunate that the justice system is not perfect and trials do not always reveal the truth. Yes, God will be the final determinant of truth.

And as for my prediction on the Yates verdict, I failed to take into account the average Texan's lack of tolerance for BS.

[medved]

So do you honestly think that because evolution might have led some to come up with the concept of "Social Darwinism" -- which is attempting to apply a biological system to a social order, which is never a good idea -- biological evolution is somehow falsified?

That's putting the cart in front of the pig...

What I DO claim is that, given the demonstrable fact that evolution is junk science, the fact that it also demonstronstably leads to pathological social and political consequences should make anybody think pretty hard about having it taught at public expenses in our schools as if it were a fact and not a theory.

[oldcats]

I got an idea...I will gladly give you some space on my domain to post that tripe, and all you will have to do is link to it. That way, us non-newcomers won't have to scroll down all the time.
Oldcats

[oldcats]

And what might this city on Mars be called....Medvedopolis? Got a map of it?
Oldcats

[oldcats]

And what might this city on Mars be called....Medvedopolis? Got a map of it?
Oldcats

[Dimensio]

What I DO claim is that, given the demonstrable fact that evolution is junk science, the fact that it also demonstronstably leads to pathological social and political consequences should make anybody think pretty hard about having it taught at public expenses in our schools as if it were a fact and not a theory.

I object to any scientific construct being taught as anything stronger than a theory because nothing in science can be demonstrated better than a "theory". That's why in science gravity is a theory, not a disprovable fact.

If evolution is junk science it should be dumped for that reason alone, but I've not seen any evidence that it's junk science. Using arguments regarding the "social consequences" of a biological theory only makes it appear that you don't have any arguments against the merits of the theory itself.

[Dimensio]

I got an idea...I will gladly give you some space on my domain to post that tripe, and all you will have to do is link to it. That way, us non-newcomers won't have to scroll down all the time.

I've got some free webspace that I'd gladly donate. Perhaps have multiple locations in case on server goes down.

[oldcats]

Or better yet......
www.medvedopolis.com!!!!
Oldcats
PS I hope that he will take this in the context that it is meant. I have nothing personal against him, but like others, am tired of seeing the same massive post time and time again....

[Kyrie]

In truth, the article posted is wrong on this point, as far as it goes.

No kidding! Did you notice that the first time you read it? Or was it only after I showed how it would make hypocrites out of most of us?

It is perfectly legitimate for me to cite Doctor Stochastic (and you) as authorities on the mathematics of radiometric dating, assuming I examine your credentials and find you to be bona-fide experts in this matter.

Um, how would I present my credentials for your examination? As far as that goes, how have your other "authorities" done it? Bio data on the flyleaf of their books? I guess I've done about that well in a previous post...

Mankind has built elaborate social institutions to try to ensure that experts are properly certified. In fact, one of them has "certified" me (in math, anyway). The same institutions teach us that it is a logical fallacy to appeal to inappropriate authorities. The subtext tells me that "inappropriate" refers to "uncertified"—by those institutions, at least. How surprising.

Would Srinivasa Ramanujan have been considered an "appropriate" authority in mathematics? How much weight should we give to the degree he was finally awarded? Should it bother us that some of his results were wrong? On the other hand, should we ignore his brilliant accomplishments?

The real problem with the "appeal to authority fallacy" is the question of "appropriate authority." Who decides? Reasonable people will often disagree on who is the "authority" on an issue.

[js1138]

But even I have to admit that your arguments can be stimulating.

Math isn't my strongest subject, but I understand thatt a mathematically consistent model of the universe can be made in which the earth is the INSIDE of a sphere, and the universe extends inward towards the center. You have to make some amazingly counter-intuitive assumptions about the laws of physics, but it can be made consistent.

Real science, of course, prefers the simpler where two logically consistent explanations can be made.