Fallacious pro-evolution arguments

Aggie · Dec 30, 2007

Lately Ive been getting more and more dissatisfied with the sloppy manner in which supporters of evolution at this forum are handling the creationists who post here. For a little while the problem was just that when a creationist comes to this forum with an honest question, they would often get more insults than answers in response. I see this most often in RichardTs case. Ill pull up one typical reply to his posts, not because Im trying to pick on the member who posted this one in particular, but because this isnt my main point and I dont want to take up too much space with multiple examples of it.

TeddyKGB said:
It's disappointing to see that you have become the ear-covering, evidence-ignoring, dogma-loving, canard-repeating spoiled brat that is utterly endemic to the creationist faction.

Disappointing, but not necessarily surprising.

This trend has annoyed me for a while, but lately theres been a second trend here that I consider even worse: supporters of evolution at this forum now seem to hold the arguments used by creationists to a much higher standard than their own arguments. The way this happens is that any creationist argument will typically be replied to in the manner outlined above, and pro-evolution posters have such a majority at this forum that theyre capable of shouting down whatever arguments they disagree with without having to point out any actual flaws in it. When it comes to arguments in favor of evolution, however, any logical inconsistencies tend to be ignored.

Several times Ive seen creationists here attempt to point out the flaws in arguments used in favor of evolution here, and received the same predictable response that they receive for everything else they post about their viewpoint. This is a good example of them being shouted down even though they actually have a pointnot a point against evolution, but a point against the arguments being used in favor of it at this forum. Since most of the people using these arguments seem incapable of listening to what creationists have to say about this, I think I should point out for myself some of the fallacious pro-evolution arguments Ive seen used here.

1: Supporters of evolution are quick to point out that evidence against evolution should not be considered evidence for biblical creationism, because biblical creationism is not the only alternative to evolution. However, when creationists mention the fact that famous scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton were biblical creationists, supporters of evolution say that this is not significant because these people lived before Darwins time, and biblical creationism was the only thing anyone would believe in the absence of the theory of evolution. I dont think I need to point out the inconsistency between these two claims.

2: Whenever supporters of evolution challenge creationists about not accepting the theory, they define evolution in the most basic terms that existchange in allele frequency as a result of mutations and natural selectionand ask creationists how they can reject something that can be observed happening in the present. This argument is used even against creationists who do accept evolution by this definition, but do not accept common ancestry. The fact that supporters of evolution also expect creationists to accept common ancestry is only mentioned as long as specific instances of it are being discussed (such as the relationship between humans and other primates), and then as soon as the discussion returns to more general terms, supporters of evolution continue to accuse creationists of rejecting evolution by its much more basic definition. Ive seen this strawman used against almost every creationist who currently posts here.

3: Most atheists at this forum claim that there is no conflict between evolution and religion, because evolution is no reason not to believe in god. However, whenever the actual existence or non-existence of a god is discussed with any of these posters, the same people claim that since the theories of evolution and abiogenesis can explain lifes origin and development without involving a god, god becomes an unnecessary entity that is ruled out by Occams Razor. Richard Dawkins has explained this in the greatest detailfor a person who calls themselves a scientist to believe in god is similar to a scientist believing in homeopathy: you cannot trust someone to be capable of performing science in an unbiased manner when they simultaneously believe something so completely unsupported. The same people who claim this should not also be trying to win support for evolution with the argument that it does not conflict with religion.

4: Ive seen supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times that the theory of evolution has never been used as support for racism. This claim is simply false, as Ive already pointed out in this thread. Blayzs first reply shows the typical response that supporters of evolution here have to this idea.

It used to be that people would occasionally come to this forum as creationists, and as a result of their participation here, would eventually end up accepting evolution. I remember this happening in the case of Dracil and MySavior. If I had joined this forum in its current state when I was still a creationist, however, seeing the theory of evolution supported by arguments such as these would have convinced me that it relies on these sorts of fallacies for support. Participating in this forum now when I was a creationist would have convinced me to remain a creationist for as long as I was posting here; I am completely certain of this.

As far as Im concerned, the only thing being accomplished here nowadays is making the theory of evolution look bad in front of people such as RichardT, who probably would have accepted it months ago if this forum were still the way it was when I joined it four years ago. I joined this forum in order to try and get creationists to accept evolution, and Im not sure its worthwhile for me to continue participating here now that were accomplishing the opposite. I dont really expect these problems to be fixed, but I think its still worth pointing them out so that if I do end up disappearing from this forum permanently, people here will understand the reason for it.

Lucretius · Dec 30, 2007

I'd like to comment on #3.

The people making those arguments are essentially forming two different arguments.

Yes, evolution and religion do not conflict. One can be religious and accept evolution. However, if we are going to go deep into a philosophical argument, evolution helps make religion useless as a term for describing the the diversification of life.

I would allow people to make both arguments — but simply to qualify them. If one wants to argue against religion, use Occam's Razor. However, if one wants a Creationist to accept evolution while keeping their religion, argue the former.

sbvera13 · Dec 30, 2007

I agree with the conlusion, that we need to be more gracious in handing out evidence instead of insults. No sense dropping to their level. However I'm going to nitpick your points a bit.

#1. The two argumetns you list are not inconsistent with each other because they are not related. The first is a Flase Dichotomy, pretending there are only 2 options when there are actually many. The second is Appeal to Authority- and since the authority in question is outdated, his views don't matter to our modern ones.

#2. I'm not sure this is a deliberate strawman as much as it is a lakc of focus. It's hard to keep a discussion on a certain track, that may be the issue.

#3. Science does not necessarily conflict with religion. Religion is the realm on the non-physical; science has no jurisdiction. And vice versa. However, science does conflict with innerrancy (including creationism). And as long as the scientist in question is aware of the separation there is no reason he should not be trusted.

#4. You are dead right that the claim is false. We should know better then to pretend noone ever justified crimes against humanity with evolutionary thinking. I need to make it very clear though that this "evolutionary thinking" is based on a serious misunderstanding of what the ToE says. The ToE specifically refers to biology, and makes no claim whatsoever about how e ought or ought not to act. It carries no moral imperative one way or the other, it merely describes a process. The rationale for eugenics is based on a misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest" and has nothing to do with the actual ToE. So while it's true that evolution has been used as justification for racism, it is an incorrect persception of evolution thats involved and so this argument have nothign to do with the validity of the ToE. It's important to be clear on this point instead of just claiming it didn't happen; we should know better and should tell others as well.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2007

Aggie said:
Lately I’ve been getting more and more dissatisfied with the sloppy manner in which supporters of evolution at this forum are handling the creationists who post here.

Hey --- you think that's bad --- check out Posts 327, 328, and 329 here. And if that's not good enough, I've just recently had my life threatened. I've even had to have admin clean up my guestbook.

Try walking in my shoes for awhile and put up with what I have to put up with.

InTheCloud · Dec 30, 2007

3: Most atheists at this forum claim that there is no conflict between evolution and religion, because evolution is no reason not to believe in god. However, whenever the actual existence or non-existence of a god is discussed with any of these posters, the same people claim that since the theories of evolution and abiogenesis can explain life’s origin and development without involving a god, god becomes an unnecessary entity that is ruled out by Occam’s Razor. Richard Dawkins has explained this in the greatest detail—for a person who calls themselves a scientist to believe in god is similar to a “scientist” believing in homeopathy: you cannot trust someone to be capable of performing science in an unbiased manner when they simultaneously believe something so completely unsupported. The same people who claim this should not also be trying to win support for evolution with the argument that it does not conflict with religion.

4: I’ve seen supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times that the theory of evolution has never been used as support for racism. This claim is simply false, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread. Blayz’s first reply shows the typical response that supporters of evolution here have to this idea.

3. So true, and Richard Dawkins suprised himself when people look at it as a pompous P-------. Some of his claims are really offensive. Like the fact that you have to be a stone atheist to be a real scientist. That must be news to scientists who are theists, monists, pantheists throught history. The other claim that I found really ofensive is when he said in Ireland to a aproving atheist audience that being raised (indoctrinated) Catholic (as a example of religious upbringing) was worse that being sexually abused as a child. I thing that a brief visit to the recovery subforums in CF would demostrate him wrong. I think R Dawkins just wants to be controversial and that he is just playing the other side of the fundamentalist game: either evolution or God. Make a choice. Not the best way to conduct a healty debate. Sadly in this forum the attitude of many of the atheists seems to be the same.I think that is the reason why many theists who are evolutionists just avoid this subforum.
4. The XX century is full of people that has misconstructed the theory of evolution and naturalistic atheism for evil purposes. The fact that the New Atheists are just sidesteping the issue is telling.
At least Bertrand Russell tried, a bit unconvicinly to adress the issue after WWII. He blamed the issue on religion but he recognized that you can believe in God without religion as many deists do or be a religious atheist as communists were.

Aggie · Dec 30, 2007

Lucretius said:
Yes, evolution and religion do not conflict. One can be religious and accept evolution. However, if we are going to go deep into a philosophical argument, evolution helps make religion useless as a term for describing the the diversification of life.

Dawkins was saying more than this, though, and so are the people who use Dawkins argument at this forum. The argument is that someone who considers themselves a good scientist cannot be religious, because religion depends on the suspension of logic, and a person who does this about one aspect of his life cant be trusted to be logical in other areas. That was the point of my homeopathy example.

Im not saying I agree with this argument, but its definitely inconsistent with the claim that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled.

sbvera13 said:
#1. The two argumetns you list are not inconsistent with each other because they are not related. The first is a Flase Dichotomy, pretending there are only 2 options when there are actually many. The second is Appeal to Authority- and since the authority in question is outdated, his views don't matter to our modern ones.

If you look at the way these claims have actually been addressed at this forum, though, its not in the way youre describing. The response to someone bringing up Newton having been a creationist is almost always something along the lines of Before Darwin most people were creationists, because there wasnt anything better to believe. I can look for an example of this, if you need one.

Washington · Dec 30, 2007

Aggie said:
1: Supporters of evolution are quick to point out that evidence against evolution should not be considered evidence for biblical creationism, because biblical creationism is not the only alternative to evolution. However, when creationists mention the fact that famous scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton were biblical creationists, supporters of evolution say that this is not significant because these people lived before Darwin’s time, and biblical creationism was the only thing anyone would believe in the absence of the theory of evolution. I don’t think I need to point out the inconsistency between these two claims.

Inconsistency?

Claim 1: Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism.
Claim 2. The beliefs of pre-Darwin scientists are irrelevant as evidence against evolution.

Where is the inconsistency? All I see are two very different issues.

2. Whenever supporters of evolution challenge creationists about not accepting the theory, they define evolution in the most basic terms that exist—change in allele frequency as a result of mutations and natural selection—and ask creationists how they can reject something that can be observed happening in the present. This argument is used even against creationists who do accept evolution by this definition, but do not accept common ancestry.

What you have posted is not an argument but a question. Recall your: "and ask . . . ."

The fact that supporters of evolution also expect creationists to accept common ancestry is only mentioned as long as specific instances of it are being discussed (such as the relationship between humans and other primates),

Not true. We don't expect creationists to accept common ancestry, because we know they're committed to special creation. What we HOPE is that the creationist listen to what we say and give it consideration. And, we'll mention common ancestry whenever we feel it's necessary.

and then as soon as the discussion returns to more general terms, supporters of evolution continue to accuse creationists of rejecting evolution by its much more basic definition. I’ve seen this strawman used against almost every creationist who currently posts here.

Not a strawman at all. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind by a, " much more basic definition," but if it's simply "common ancestry," common ancestry is nothing more than the result of the mechanism: "change in allele frequency as a result of mutations and natural selection." One is the means and the other is the product, both of which are valid concepts that can be spoken of either individually or together. It's like talking about a pitched ball---swing---hit, and its result: a base run.

3: Most atheists at this forum claim that there is no conflict between evolution and religion, because evolution is no reason not to believe in god. However, whenever the actual existence or non-existence of a god is discussed with any of these posters, the same people claim that since the theories of evolution and abiogenesis can explain life’s origin and development without involving a god, god becomes an unnecessary entity that is ruled out by Occam’s Razor.

Really!!! "Most" you say. Hmmm. I'd like to see two, just TWO, examples of such an argument. However, IF anyone, atheist or otherwise makes such an argument---that Occam's Razor rules out anything---they would be in error.

4: I’ve seen supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times that the theory of evolution has never been used as support for racism. This claim is simply false, as I’ve already pointed out in this thread. Blayz’s first reply shows the typical response that supporters of evolution here have to this idea.

That's one.

What bothers me is people who resort to hyperbole to make their point. The unqualified: "Supporters of evolution are," "Whenever supporters of evolution," and "supporters of evolution also expect." Even the qualified "Most atheists," and "supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times" stretches one's credulity.

TheBear · Dec 30, 2007

Thank you for the OP, Aggie!

I agree. There's no need for abrasiveness in the discussions, no matter how disagreed. I see that kind of behavior in both camps. It is behavior accountable at individual level, not necessarily a classification or group. But I do see a heck of a lot more of it, coming from individuals from the creationist camp.

Either way, we should all be civil towards each other, regardless of disagreements. Let's try to keep the personal attacks out of the discussions.

Let me address one point.

Aggie said:
1: Supporters of evolution are quick to point out that evidence against evolution should not be considered evidence for biblical creationism, because biblical creationism is not the only alternative to evolution.

Well, that's not true for me.

First, I accept biological evolution, (not 'believe in'), and that acceptance is tentative. If newly discovered evidence contradicts, or really throws a curve ball at the theory, for example, trilobite fossils discovered in the same layers as human fossils, that's a huge discovery, much of the theory would have to be reworked, much of geology and paleontology too. (perhaps tossed out altogether) Even if that were to happen tomorrow, it doesn't automatically make Biblical Creationism the default 'theory'. It's got to stand on it's own merits, by surviving the rigorous scrutiny which evolution has been undergoing for the last 150 years. Good luck with that.

If anyone has discovered evidence which contradicts the current model, please share it with us here. But more importantly, you need to be going to journal editors with your discoveries.

Any takers on that? Anybody?

troodon · Dec 30, 2007

I agree with much of what Aggie said. The tone here has changed much since the last time I was active.

Phred · Dec 30, 2007

You don't think that Dawkins has a point? That scientists wall off the area of their minds that deal with religion from the part that deals with science? How can a good Catholic scientist believe in a man that was born of a virgin, multiplied fish and wine and rose from the dead without questioning? Then go off to do particle physics or some such... instead of doing an experiment why not just say "goddidit" and be done with it?

I'll tell you why... because he or she has walled off the part of their minds that plays church on Sundays from the part that is a scientist the rest of the week. Otherwise they couldn't be both.

As to inculcating a child into religion being child abuse... imagine raising a kid to believe in Santa into adulthood. It's the same thing... there are just a lot of people doing it so nobody complains. Now, when one guy points out what's being done he must be the one who's wrong.

So has the tone changed around here? Yes... it has. We don't have any honest creationists to deal with anymore. Just deceit and lies. After awhile you get tired of spending time researching posts only to have them dismissed with Hovind cut and pastes or irrelevant Bible verses. If some honest creationists have gotten caught up in the wave of revulsion... perhaps they should take it up with their ilk. I surely don't see any religious organizations trying to stop these fools. Maybe you do catch more flies with honey... I'm just sick and tired of wasting honey on insects.

As to your points... can I remind you of something? Creationism is a lie. One great big complete lie. These people who've used these mistaken points aren't lying... they're mistaken. They've made some mistakes not out of malice but out of wanting to do a good thing. Help 'em... don't beat 'em.

TeddyKGB · Dec 30, 2007

I almost didn't post this about seventeen times. But whatever.

So the moral of this story is that because RichardT is still a creationist, we're doing something wrong? Forgive me if I don't instantly acknowledge proof-by-anecdote coupled with your questionable historical revisionism.

It is often assumed that kid-glove treatment is obviously the best way to change any opinion, but no one has ever provided data in support. Psychology is complex; there is no rule that niceness leads inevitably to acceptance. In fact, one might regularly come upon situations where niceness is counterproductive.

I wrote what I wrote out of frustration, and that's probably a poor reason most of the time. But I spend hours a day with dozens of teenagers, and I stand by my assessment if not the delivery. I don't remember exactly what he wrote that precipitated my comment, but I do recall it was particularly haughty and galling.

In any case, I am not sure I understand why Richard needs your sympathy. He is certainly not ill-equipped for this debate; he's smart, articulate, and willing to do research. His problem is that, for whatever reason, he places dogma and tradition above empiricism on whatever philosophical hierarchy he's working from. What, then, can dispassionately reproducing evidence accomplish? Talkorigins is about as dispassionate as it gets and is thoroughly cited, to boot. He knows how to get there and has probably read a fair share of the articles therein. What are we accomplishing by regurgitating what's already written? We'll do it anyway, of course, because that's what we do. And, despite your doom-saying, I suspect the majority of posts in here are still of the fact-delivering variety. If Richard wants the facts then he can come by them easily. If he wants to reinforce his antiquated worldview then he will find a way to do just that regardless of most of what we say.

troodon · Dec 30, 2007

Phred said:
So has the tone changed around here? Yes... it has. We don't have any honest creationists to deal with anymore. Just deceit and lies. After awhile you get tired of spending time researching posts only to have them dismissed with Hovind cut and pastes or irrelevant Bible verses. If some honest creationists have gotten caught up in the wave of revulsion... perhaps they should take it up with their ilk. I surely don't see any religious organizations trying to stop these fools. Maybe you do catch more flies with honey... I'm just sick and tired of wasting honey on insects.

I don't really see it as trying to convince people by being nice. This is primarily a scientific question and in science there's no place for kindness or malice in the discussion, just empiricism. Not attacking an opponent should not be mistaken for being nice.

sbvera13 · Dec 30, 2007

Aggie said:
If you look at the way these claims have actually been addressed at this forum, though, its not in the way youre describing. The response to someone bringing up Newton having been a creationist is almost always something along the lines of Before Darwin most people were creationists, because there wasnt anything better to believe. I can look for an example of this, if you need one.

Must have been my mistake in misinterpreting your statement. Were you saying that's an inadequate response? Perhaps so, but the conclusion is sound either way, so that's something. I also don't understand how it was inconsistent with the false dichotomy response. I'm probably just not seeing your point well enough to get the gist.

MemeBuster · Dec 30, 2007

Aggie said:
If I had joined this forum in its current state when I was still a creationist, however, seeing the theory of evolution supported by arguments such as these would have convinced me that it relies on these sorts of fallacies for support.

You are not a creationist anymore? But your profile states that your origin of life view is: "God created all of time at once , so evolution obeys His will without Him having to intervene." What does this mean anyway?

Im not sure its worthwhile for me to continue participating here now that were accomplishing the opposite.

Bye bye then.

MB.

BrainHertz · Dec 30, 2007

troodon said:
I don't really see it as trying to convince people by being nice. This is primarily a scientific question and in science there's no place for kindness or malice in the discussion, just empiricism. Not attacking an opponent should not be mistaken for being nice.

I agree. Also, an important corollary: tearing down an opponent's argument should not be confused with malice.

metherion · Dec 31, 2007

You don't think that Dawkins has a point? That scientists wall off the area of their minds that deal with religion from the part that deals with science? How can a good Catholic scientist believe in a man that was born of a virgin, multiplied fish and wine and rose from the dead without questioning? Then go off to do particle physics or some such... instead of doing an experiment why not just say "goddidit" and be done with it?

I'll tell you why... because he or she has walled off the part of their minds that plays church on Sundays from the part that is a scientist the rest of the week. Otherwise they couldn't be both.

Sorry, Phred, but I must say, you're dead wrong.

I happen to be a Catholic scientist. (And graduating with a bachelor's in Chem Eng in the spring if all goes well, YES!!!)) and I am most definitely not two people, or have parts my mind walled off all the time.

How can I do it? Easy. I remember that God doesn't do everything all the time. Not EVERYTHING is a supernatural occurrence. The natural happens. Sometimes the supernatural happens, but when it does it can be found out if you know how to look.

God made the natural world for a reason, and gave us the ability to figure it out as a reason. It doesn't mean He never intervenes, nor does it mean He can't intervene, nor does it mean He always intervenes. How did the Jews get from place to place? They walked. Or rode. God didn't teleport them. How did Jesus preach? By words, not telepathy. Et cetera.

I don't need to attribute everything to "Goddidit" to get anything done. As a matter of fact, it tends to work quite well without it. But that's because science is figuring out the natural, how stuff works when God isn't poking it with a finger, or the FSM isn't using His Noodly Appendage, or the Great Spirit Who Messes With Protons isn't manipulating it, or whatever. But just because I know how to reason and work without assuming God doesn't mean I can't accept Him.

How can I do it? Easily. I remember that there isn't any contradiction. Then I go do it. There isn't any reason to attribute natural everyday occurrences, or even weird, cool, rare, and exciting lab occurrences to God acting supernaturally all the time. Just because ethanol and water won't be separated past ~95% by normal boiling doesn't mean God is holding them together.

Not everyone's mind works likes Dawkin's mind does, and from what I can gather from you guys he doesn't seem to get that.

Metherion

Aggie, i you'd like, I'll pull this off to a new thread so as not to derail this one.

Aggie · Dec 31, 2007

Washington, I already explained the problems with some of these arguments in response to Lucretius, so I’ll just address the rest of what you’ve said:

Washington said:
Not a strawman at all. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind by a, " much more basic definition," but if it's simply "common ancestry," common ancestry is nothing more than the result of the mechanism: "change in allele frequency as a result of mutations and natural selection." One is the means and the other is the product, both of which are valid concepts that can be spoken of either individually or together. It's like talking about a pitched ball---swing---hit, and its result: a base run.

You’re assuming here that if someone accepts allele change as a result of mutations and natural selection, then they will always accept common ancestry also. If this were true, then it would make sense to assume that if someone rejects the second they must reject the first also, but there are a lot of people who accept the first while rejecting the second. I know it doesn’t make a lot of sense to accept one without the other, but creationist arguments aren’t always consistent, and it’s still a strawman if you misrepresent them.

Washington said:
What bothers me is people who resort to hyperbole to make their point. The unqualified: "Supporters of evolution are," "Whenever supporters of evolution," and "supporters of evolution also expect." Even the qualified "Most atheists," and "supporters of evolution claim here dozens of times" stretches one's credulity.

I’m able to put together a list of people who act this way and people who don’t, but I didn’t think I should post the names of people in the first group because that could be considered flaming. I can say who the people are who don’t have this problem, though, because with only a couple of exceptions they all fit into one of two groups. One is people such as Troodon, who joined this forum and were active here before it began going downhill, and the other is people who are active at science-related forums that don’t specifically involve creationism and evolution. Members of the second group tend to be interested in educating others about science for its own sake, and their behavior at this forum reflects that. But both of these groups combined are outnumbered by the people I described in my OP by around two and a half to one.

TeddyKGB said:
I almost didn't post this about seventeen times. But whatever.

So the moral of this story is that because RichardT is still a creationist, we're doing something wrong? Forgive me if I don't instantly acknowledge proof-by-anecdote coupled with your questionable historical revisionism.

It is often assumed that kid-glove treatment is obviously the best way to change any opinion, but no one has ever provided data in support. Psychology is complex; there is no rule that niceness leads inevitably to acceptance. In fact, one might regularly come upon situations where niceness is counterproductive.

I wrote what I wrote out of frustration, and that's probably a poor reason most of the time. But I spend hours a day with dozens of teenagers, and I stand by my assessment if not the delivery. I don't remember exactly what he wrote that precipitated my comment, but I do recall it was particularly haughty and galling.

In any case, I am not sure I understand why Richard needs your sympathy. He is certainly not ill-equipped for this debate; he's smart, articulate, and willing to do research. His problem is that, for whatever reason, he places dogma and tradition above empiricism on whatever philosophical hierarchy he's working from. What, then, can dispassionately reproducing evidence accomplish? Talkorigins is about as dispassionate as it gets and is thoroughly cited, to boot. He knows how to get there and has probably read a fair share of the articles therein. What are we accomplishing by regurgitating what's already written? We'll do it anyway, of course, because that's what we do. And, despite your doom-saying, I suspect the majority of posts in here are still of the fact-delivering variety. If Richard wants the facts then he can come by them easily. If he wants to reinforce his antiquated worldview then he will find a way to do just that regardless of most of what we say.

The way people treat Richard has been discussed before at this forum, and I have a thread about it here. (The discussion about how Richard is treated starts around the end of the first page.) Specifically, this thread deals with an attempt that Richard made early this year to determine whether what he’d been taught as a creationist was false, which ended with him getting treated the way he currently is and losing interest in what he was trying to learn about as a result. I’ve been discussing this with him in private for several months, so I’m able to see fairly directly how it affects him.

sbvera13 said:
Must have been my mistake in misinterpreting your statement. Were you saying that's an inadequate response? Perhaps so, but the conclusion is sound either way, so that's something. I also don't understand how it was inconsistent with the false dichotomy response. I'm probably just not seeing your point well enough to get the gist.

The point is that if you’re going to say that the reason why people such as Newton were creationists is because the theory of evolution didn’t exist yet, you’re implicitly invoking the same false dichotomy that most people here agree is a faulty argument. If attacking evolution does nothing to support creationism, because there are so many possible alternatives to evolution apart from creationism, then it should also be significant that Newton chose creationism among all the other possible ideas that he could have believed before the theory of evolution existed. But no, whenever a famous scientist from the past is being discussed, the argument used here is that them having been a creationist doesn’t mean anything because there was nothing other than creationism for them to believe before Darwin’s time.

As far as the conclusion being right, if you just mean that creationism is unsupported, I’m not arguing with that. What I’m saying is that we intend to convince anyone else of this, we should not be using arguments that have such obvious flaws in them.

MemeBuster said:
You are not a creationist anymore? But your profile states that your origin of life view is: "God created all of time at once , so evolution obeys His will without Him having to intervene." What does this mean anyway?

It means I’m a theistic evolutionist. The reason I don’t use the term “theistic evolution” for myself is because it’s generally only Christians who use that term for themselves at this forum, and I already have too many people here mistake me for a Christian despite the clearly visible “Deist” icon in my profile.

I haven’t been a creationist since 1996. I’ve been registered here since January of 2004, and a a year and a half ago I created the Occam’s Razor comic series in order to make fun of some of the creationist arguments I see at this board. Had you really never noticed before now that I’m not a creationist?

metherion said:
Aggie, i you'd like, I'll pull this off to a new thread so as not to derail this one.

It would be kind of hypocritical for me to have a problem with you discussing it here, since I’ve just pulled one of Nitron’s threads down a sidetrack pretty recently. Besides, seeing Phred’s argument here is a fairly good example of the argument I’m talking about that I’ve seen Dawkins use, which I don’t think is consistent with the claim that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled, even though both arguments are often used by the same people.

consol · Dec 31, 2007

metherion said:
Sorry, Phred, but I must say, you're dead wrong.

I happen to be a Catholic scientist. (And graduating with a bachelor's in Chem Eng in the spring if all goes well, YES!!!)) and I am most definitely not two people, or have parts my mind walled off all the time.

How can I do it? Easy. I remember that God doesn't do everything all the time. Not EVERYTHING is a supernatural occurrence. The natural happens. Sometimes the supernatural happens, but when it does it can be found out if you know how to look.

God made the natural world for a reason, and gave us the ability to figure it out as a reason. It doesn't mean He never intervenes, nor does it mean He can't intervene, nor does it mean He always intervenes. How did the Jews get from place to place? They walked. Or rode. God didn't teleport them. How did Jesus preach? By words, not telepathy. Et cetera.

I don't need to attribute everything to "Goddidit" to get anything done. As a matter of fact, it tends to work quite well without it. But that's because science is figuring out the natural, how stuff works when God isn't poking it with a finger, or the FSM isn't using His Noodly Appendage, or the Great Spirit Who Messes With Protons isn't manipulating it, or whatever. But just because I know how to reason and work without assuming God doesn't mean I can't accept Him.

How can I do it? Easily. I remember that there isn't any contradiction. Then I go do it. There isn't any reason to attribute natural everyday occurrences, or even weird, cool, rare, and exciting lab occurrences to God acting supernaturally all the time. Just because ethanol and water won't be separated past ~95% by normal boiling doesn't mean God is holding them together.

Not everyone's mind works likes Dawkin's mind does, and from what I can gather from you guys he doesn't seem to get that.

Metherion

Are you sure you are not just separating what you were taught as a child from what you have learnt in college?

It would be interesting to know which one gave way to which in the event of a conflict.

My problem in understanding religion comes from the fact that I was not subject to any religion when growing up,
consequently I do not understand why people never question their religion,
it does not take Freud to realise your religion came from your parents,
and had your parents believed some other religion, so would you,
imagine if they had been Scientologists, you would be a L. Ron Hubbard follower now,
and Catholicism would not even figure in your life.

TemperateSeaIsland · Dec 31, 2007

aggie said:
I haven’t been a creationist since 1996. I’ve been registered here since January of 2004, and a a year and a half ago I created the Occam’s Razor comic series in order to make fun of some of the creationist arguments I see at this board. Had you really never noticed before now that I’m not a creationist?

Don't you think you're being a little hypocritical creating this thread after creating a comic book that has the sole purpose of ridiculing creationists?

TheManeki · Dec 31, 2007

consol said:
Are you sure you are not just separating what you were taught as a child from what you have learnt in college?

It would be interesting to know which one gave way to which in the event of a conflict.

My problem in understanding religion comes from the fact that I was not subject to any religion when growing up,
consequently I do not understand why people never question their religion,
it does not take Freud to realise your religion came from your parents,
and had your parents believed some other religion, so would you,
imagine if they had been Scientologists, you would be a L. Ron Hubbard follower now,
and Catholicism would not even figure in your life.

It's a tough call. I grew up very fundamentalist...but I got better. I'm still a Christian, although now a liberal one. In light of your earlier statement, the fact that I no longer am either a fundamentalist or creationist may indicate that I wasn't very well indoctrinated to begin with, or perhaps I just did a better job than some other Christians in observing the world around me and educating myself. But more on that topic would be better suited for your other thread.

Additionally, to respond to Phred's interesting post, I am a scientist (Ph.D. chemistry) and I do wonder about miracles in the Bible. It can be hard to believe them in this day and age where miracles seem rare (unless you're a romantic sort who believes simple things like love and friendship are miraculous) and the main people God seems to talk to are (to paraphrase Lily Tomlin) schizophrenics. But even if the Bible's miracles are so much fairytales, there are still some nuggets of wisdom present in the book (along with violence and genocide, but that's another topic).

I may even have seen a miracle once, but I'm far from sure: About a decade ago, my 34-year-old cousin had a massive heart attack at work, and when we rushed to the hospital the doctors told us he wouldn't live the night. But after surgery he made a full recovery and suffers no ill effects today. Still, that could be more a case of a probabilistic long shot coming through, and no more miraculous than winning the lottery. I compare that to a friend of mine who eight years ago was a passenger in a car that was struck by a drunk driver. My friend was also expected to die from his grievous injuries, but survived, although God didn't come through like he did for my cousin -- my friend will be in a wheelchair for the rest of his days. Again, God or simple probability? I gotta admit, I lean towards probability in both cases.

As I've moved from fundamentalist to liberal Christian, one day I may similarly move from Christianity to atheism. For now I'll stick with Christianity, trying to follow the worthwhile parts and criticizing the backwards parts, while continuously trying to examine my beliefs. And believing in my ecumenical way that the kind of life lived is ultimately more important than one's personal religion or philosophy.

Fallacious pro-evolution arguments

Soldier of Knowledge

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Veteran

Soldier of Knowledge

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Be wise and be smart

Junior Mint

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Be wise and be smart

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Veteran

Soldier of Knowledge

Well-Known Member

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Christian Humanist

Similar threads