Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Science, Evolution and the New Golden Rules

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The "Golden Rule" that most of us learned is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (derived from "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise", Luke 6.31). Another version has been said, "Know the Golden Rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules".

There is something else that I would like to put forth, a kind of "Golden Rule" for debates and discussions: "The one that makes the definitions controls the argument".

Argument controlled through definitions

When entering debates or discussions, it is extremely helpful to define terms. Otherwise, you can be arguing about something that the other party understands differently. This is especially important when flexible words like "science" and "evolution" are being used. Some people mistakenly (and I believe some do this deliberately) will equivocate on the word "evolution"; they see change that has nothing to do with evolution, and then insist that it is evolution in action:

Bait-and-switch equivocation happens when people will say that natural selection or so-called "micro-evolution" validates goo-to-you macro-evolution. This is sometimes done as a mistake, but often to deceive and manipulate:

Someone insisted that both "science" and "evolution" are the same thing. This shows a terrible lack of comprehension of the natures of both science and evolution:
In addition to the abusive ad hominem, we have the fallacies of equivocation and assertion.
There are people who will make their own arbitrary definitions. This example is fallacious on several levels:
Again, erroneously equivocating "evolution" with "science", plus denigrating "creation" as "mythology".
I just heard this fine example of arbitrary and convoluted definitions to define reality on a podcast:
The supernatural, as far as I'm concerned, by definition, cannot exist, because if something exists within reality, no matter how strange the thing is that's existing within reality, it's part of reality and it's natural. To become supernatural, something has to be apart from reality, it has to be external to nature. As there is nothing that is external to nature, no matter how bizarre, then it's impossible in my mind for the supernatural to exist, it's illogical to believe it does... Alex Botten defines reality for his own purposes

Amazing. "Reality" is defined as naturalism. This makes atheism convenient for him because of his definition. He is also requiring "reality" to strictly adhere to what he is insisting to be "natural". By defining "reality" his own way, he is effectively creating his own reality to suit his atheistic worldview! That is not the sign of a healthy mind.

One reason I am not interested in debating is because people will rely on their own definitions, as well as changing their definitions. Also, I will not continue when someone is establishing their argument on obvious logical fallacies. I recommend that people define their terms before engaging in  debates or lengthy discussions with atheists and evolutionists. When you see that they are not interested in being rational, it's time to find something productive to do.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!