Sarfati's caricature of evolution

gluadys · Nov 22, 2007

Project 86 recently posted the links to Sarfati's Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2 in the creationist sub-forum.

It is a potent reminder again that when speaking of evolution, creationists and scientists are talking past each other. Evolution as defined by creationists and evolution defined by science are like apples and oranges. Not the same thing at all.

Creationism is maintained by a complex web of strawman assertions that have nothing to do with evolution per se.

Sarfati doesn't take long to unveil the strawmen. Early in the first chapter he states:

The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.

Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves.

Emphasis in the original.

Three characteristics of the naturalist framework are listed here:

1. Things made themselves
2. No divine intervention has happened.
3. God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.

Not one of these things needs to be assumed for the theory of evolution to be true.

Cultivating the illusion that evolution requires these assumptions seems to be a primary function of anti-evolutionist promoters.

What is the purpose of such misrepresentation? Is it because creationists need more than the bible to convince themselves of creationism? Is it because creationism today already includes the theory of evolution in all but name, but won't/can't admit it?

One thing is clear. Whatever creationists oppose, it is not the theory of evolution. It is a carefully cultivated figment of the imagination for which the label "evolution" has been misappropriated.

juvenissun · Nov 22, 2007

gluadys said:
One thing is clear. Whatever creationists oppose, it is not the theory of evolution. It is a carefully cultivated figment of the imagination for which the label "evolution" has been misappropriated.

The effect of evolution is like a monster with 10 heads. Even only one of them is the true evolution, in order to kill the monster, it is OK to attack all of them.

gluadys · Nov 22, 2007

juvenissun said:
The effect of evolution is like a monster with 10 heads. Even only one of them is the true evolution, in order to kill the monster, it is OK to attack all of them.

The so-called effects of evolution which are attacked are not effects of evolution. One can attack them without ever touching evolution or falsely calling what one is attacking "evolution".

If the problem (as cited here) is the philosophy of naturalism, then attack the philosophy of naturalism.

Why drag evolution into it? Naturalism is neither a cause nor an effect of evolution. Pinning the label "evolution" on naturalism and then attacking naturalism under the name of "refuting evolution" is a misrepresentation of both naturalism and evolution.

Refuting naturalism does not refute evolution, because evolution is independent of the philosophy of naturalism.

Mallon · Nov 22, 2007

juvenissun said:
The effect of evolution is like a monster with 10 heads. Even only one of them is the true evolution, in order to kill the monster, it is OK to attack all of them.

I hate to sound mean, but that's the worst analogy I've ever heard. I can't believe you're actually advocating attacking strawman perversions of evolution.
Would an atheist be right to reject Christianity on the basis of misrepresentation?
If you want to address an issue, you have to deal with what it does say. Not what it doesn't.
Sheesh.

juvenissun · Nov 23, 2007

Mallon said:
I hate to sound mean, but that's the worst analogy I've ever heard. I can't believe you're actually advocating attacking strawman perversions of evolution.
Would an atheist be right to reject Christianity on the basis of misrepresentation?
If you want to address an issue, you have to deal with what it does say. Not what it doesn't.
Sheesh.

You need to realize the practical situation. Not many people understand the "real" meaning of evolution you and Glaudys referred to, may be it also include me in this category. However, 99% of christian population have a wrong impression about what evolution stands for, which is atheistic and evil. So, I am for the strategy of shot gun attack and not be bothered with what the real evolution could mean. Nevertheless, I won't do it personally, because I am a scientist.

Mallon · Nov 23, 2007

juvenissun said:
You need to realize the practical situation. Not many people understand the "real" meaning of evolution you and Glaudys referred to, may be it also include me in this category. However, 99% of christian population have a wrong impression about what evolution stands for, which is atheistic and evil. So, I am for the strategy of shot gun attack and not be bothered with what the real evolution could mean. Nevertheless, I won't do it personally, because I am a scientist.

What you are advocating is that people attack a definition of evolution that is false, rather than educating themselves as to what evolution really is. This anti-intellectual strategy is what's evil, and I can hardly believe a self-proclaimed scientist is espousing it. By your own admission, you are a supporter of lies. THAT'S evil.
And please don't turn around and call evolution a lie, given that you just admitted above that you do not understand it.

gluadys · Nov 23, 2007

juvenissun said:
You need to realize the practical situation. Not many people understand the "real" meaning of evolution you and Glaudys referred to, may be it also include me in this category.

Of course they don't understand the real meaning of evolution.
And people like Sarfati and his colleagues at AiG are the reason why they don't.
These are the people who are cultivating the false image of evolution as atheistic and evil: who pin the label "evolution" on naturalism and other ideas unacceptable to Christians and persuade them that this strawman is "evolution".

So, I am for the strategy of shot gun attack and not be bothered with what the real evolution could mean.

It doesn't matter how many strawmen you target with your shotgun, they are still strawmen.
The only way to really get around this problem is to hammer home what evolution really is and show that the strawmen are only made of straw.

juvenissun · Nov 23, 2007

Mallon said:
What you are advocating is that people attack a definition of evolution that is false, rather than educating themselves as to what evolution really is. This anti-intellectual strategy is what's evil, and I can hardly believe a self-proclaimed scientist is espousing it. By your own admission, you are a supporter of lies. THAT'S evil.
And please don't turn around and call evolution a lie, given that you just admitted above that you do not understand it.

As a scientist, I do not call the real meaning of evolution a lie. I called it a method of classification. No more than that.

gluadys · Nov 23, 2007

juvenissun said:
As a scientist, I do not call the real meaning of evolution a lie. I called it a method of classification. No more than that.

Another strawman. That's taxonomy, not evolution.

Mallon · Nov 23, 2007

juvenissun said:
As a scientist

Where can I read about your work?

juvenissun · Nov 23, 2007

Mallon said:
Where can I read about your work?

Do you mean once you read my work, then you would admit that I am a scientist. Otherwise you won't?

If so, I think you are till too young to be a real scientist. You may assume that I am not. So what? Would that make your argument stronger? or my argument any weaker?

Mallon · Nov 23, 2007

juvenissun said:
Do you mean once you read my work, then you would admit that I am a scientist. Otherwise you won't?

If so, I think you are till too young to be a real scientist. You may assume that I am not. So what? Would that make your argument stronger? or my argument any weaker?

Why won't you tell me about where I can read your work? You keep playing the scientist card; I'm interested in knowing what kind of science you do. You advocated the propogation of lies earlier, how do I know you're not also lying about being a scientist?

juvenissun · Nov 23, 2007

Mallon said:
Why won't you tell me about where I can read your work? You keep playing the scientist card; I'm interested in knowing what kind of science you do. You advocated the propogation of lies earlier, how do I know you're not also lying about being a scientist?

I told you, treat me as a non-scientist. On this regard, you may call me a lier. I do not care.
See how would that make any difference.

juvenissun · Nov 23, 2007

Mallon said:
Why won't you tell me about where I can read your work? You keep playing the scientist card; I'm interested in knowing what kind of science you do. You advocated the propogation of lies earlier, how do I know you're not also lying about being a scientist?

As I said in this forum before, my specialty is on rocks. You may try to throw your hardest rock problem to me to test on how do I respond.

Mallon · Nov 23, 2007

juvenissun said:
I told you, treat me as a non-scientist. On this regard, you may call me a lier. I do not care.
See how would that make any difference.

A self-proclaimed scientist who espouses ignorance as a means of defeating a theory he admittedly doesn't understand does make a difference. Especially if you are in a teaching position. No scientist in their right mind would take such a stance, so please forgive if I don't believe you are a scientist (a technician, maybe ).
(For what it's worth, this isn't the first time I've asked juvenissun what sort of research he does for a living, but I've yet to receive an answer.)

shernren · Nov 23, 2007

gluadys said:
Sarfati doesn't take long to unveil the strawmen. Early in the first chapter he states:

The framework behind the evolutionists interpretation is naturalismit is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.

Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves.
Emphasis in the original.

Three characteristics of the naturalist framework are listed here:

1. Things made themselves
2. No divine intervention has happened.
3. God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.

Not one of these things needs to be assumed for the theory of evolution to be true.

Hmm, I don't know if that's quite the right line of attack.

========

The other day I went to a mechanic, because my car was having problems starting up in the morning. After looking over it the mechanic said "You don't really know anything about cars, do you? Your battery's gone. I can change it for a new one for - "

"Stop! You're a naturalist mechanic, aren't you?"

"Wh - what?"

"Well, because:

1. You assumed that the electricity from my car battery is produced by lead and lead sulphate reacting - in other words, that things make other things.
2. You assumed that the car battery operates completely under scientifically explicable principles - in other words, that no divine intervention has happened.
3. You didn't pray for an answer - you assumed, in other words, that God does not reveal to you information about my past."

"Look, young whippersnapper, I'm just doing my job."

"And I'm going to reject your atheistic materialism and pray for God to fix my car."

"Fair enough. Now, will you get that Jesusmobile out of my garage?"

========

I think we need to show creationists how duplicitous they are in rejecting materialism in deep time and then applying it in their everyday lives. This is, on a fundamental level, related to busterdog's recent inconsistency: in one post he stated that observed evidence is untrustworthy compared to divine revelation, and in another he used observed evidence to decry the Big Bang.

Creationists live in a society which relies on naturalism at every level; moreover, they have absolutely no protest against that form of naturalism. And for good reason: it really does work. And yet they protest when it is used to derive evolution from deep-time evidence.

Naturalism isn't wrong. And it is necessary for evolution to be derived from evidence, no less than a mechanic needs naturalism to diagnose a car or a doctor to diagnose his patient. But once again, both atheists and creationists conflate methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. That's where the error is.

Mallon · Nov 23, 2007

shernren said:
Hmm, I don't know if that's quite the right line of attack.

I doubt if there is a single line of attack, given how little anti-evolutionary creationists agree on. Some think science is proved by the Bible; others think the Bible is proved by science. Some think the book of Job is poetic; others think it's scientific. Some think God created the earth with the appearance of age; others think God created it to look young. Some think mutations introduce variation; others do not. Some think we cannot trust our own observations and therefore should not appeal to science; others think we can trust the eyes God gave us. And these are all examples I've pulled from these forums alone!
There's no consistency to their theology. The party line is: Do what it takes to refute evolution... (even if it means contradicting yourself).

gluadys · Nov 23, 2007

shernren said:
Creationists live in a society which relies on naturalism at every level; moreover, they have absolutely no protest against that form of naturalism. And for good reason: it really does work. And yet they protest when it is used to derive evolution from deep-time evidence.

Naturalism isn't wrong. And it is necessary for evolution to be derived from evidence, no less than a mechanic needs naturalism to diagnose a car or a doctor to diagnose his patient. But once again, both atheists and creationists conflate methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. That's where the error is.

I agree. Sarfati is really talking about a philosophy of naturalism or ontological naturalism and conflating it with methodological naturalism.

Creationists use the latter in daily life, and even to sustain their creationist beliefs. Here is an excerpt from the second chapter of Refuting Evolution. Just prior to this paragraph Sarfati speaks of an experiment (also described in the NAS's Teaching About Evolution) in which Darwin exposed land snails to salt water for various lengths of time and concluded that they could drift for moderately wides distances over salt water.

Thus, Darwin helped answer a problem raised by skeptics of the Bible and its account of the flood and ark: How did the animals get to faraway places? This also showed that some invertebrates could have survived the flood outside the ark,10 possibly on rafts of pumice or tangled vegetation, or on driftwood as Darwin suggested. Other experiments by Darwin showed that garden seeds could still sprout after 42 days immersion in salt water, so they could have traveled 1,400 miles (2,240 km) on a typical ocean current.11 This shows how plants could have survived without being on the arkagain by floating on driftwood, pumice, or vegetation rafts even if they were often soaked. Therefore, the creation-flood-migration model could also have led to such experiments, despite what Teaching about Evolution implies.12

The whole of this paragraph is aimed at convincing readers that no supernatural explanation is necessary to get animals from the Ark to their current locations. It can all be explained naturally.

Now, if the problem with evolution is that it excludes supernatural explanations, why go to all the trouble to exclude them as an explanation of how the animals dispersed from the Ark?

Creationism is just as fundamentally rooted in methodological naturalism as science is. It could not make claims to be scientific if it were not. Yet it faults evolution for excluding what creationism itself works to exclude.

Sarfati's caricature of evolution

Legend

... and God saw that it was good.

Legend

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

Legend

... and God saw that it was good.

Legend

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency