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

Showing posts with label Scientific American. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scientific American. Show all posts

Saturday, October 21, 2017

How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted

Or, "How Do I Refute Thee? Let Me Count the Ways..." 

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As we have seen numerous time on this site alone, anti-creationists want to debunk what we have to say. These self-appointed social justice warriors go on search-and-destroy missions, attacking creationary sites in their efforts to protect "science". In reality, they are attempting to protect evolutionism from rational scrutiny. We get a boatload of them at The Question Evolution Project. What follows involves my own observations as well as material that I recommend for your edification.

Credit: Freeimages / gestoerte

Darwin's Crusaders

Science thrives on information and discussion, but anti-creationists not only oppose free speech, but free thought. Darwinism must be guarded, lest people see it for what it really is. Many of these folks fancy themselves as crusaders for science, falsely calling those who disagree with evolution "liars", egos telling them that they are vitally important to their cause. Most are not taken seriously, and are only making a small splash in a puddle, having no impact on the ocean of truth that biblical creationists present. 

Anti-creationists seldom merit interaction, since they present atheistic and evolutionary talking points, nor do they evince logical thinking. They do like bullying and intimidation, though. Sometimes, they slap leather with uninformed creationists, but Darwin's crusaders are seldom willing to engage credentialed creationary scientists on equal footing. Perhaps it is because the run-of-the-mill atheist on the internet is not all that well educated. More likely it is because they are suppressing the truth (Romans 1:18-23).

Bad Reasoning from Atheists and Evolutionists

Critics of both creation science and Christianity itself are known to use many logical fallacies, even combining several into one statement. Mockery is obligatory. Criticisms leveled at us are common at anti-creationist web sites and forums, and those are parroted by Darwin's disciples in comments on creationary Pages, forums, their own Pages and forums, and so on. Not a whole passel of original thought happening there.

One reason creationists emphasize critical thinking skills, which includes knowing how to play Spot the Fallacy®, is so we're not buffaloed by antagonists (who often have no credibility outside their own camp). Another reason to learn how to think properly is so we can be more exact and God-honoring in our own apologetic.

One of the most common is the stunningly fallacious claim that, because we oppose evolution or anthropogenic climate change, we are "science deniers". (Related to this is the manufactured "war between science and religion" — note the conflation between science and evolution or climate change). This is simply playing to their base and appealing to emotions. It is often the case that when something hateful is said, it is applauded by their fellow travelers, no matter how ridiculous, because being united in hate is important to them. Romans 1:32 comes to mind. If you study on it a spell, the "science deniers" claim is easily refuted. A very good response to this can be found by reading, "Is There Really a War on Science?"

Since I've detailed these examples of bad thinking elsewhere, we won't need to saddle up for a long ride down the trail. Instead, I'll give you some short forms of incoherent obloquies that we receive.
  • Ad hominem ("to the man"). For some reason, the Latin name is commonly used for this one, but not for most others. Ad hominem remarks can be simple insults and name calling ("You creotards"), or more subtle attacks on a person's intelligence or integrity. They are frequently combined with other examples of illogical thinking.
  • Straw man. It is easy to set up a straw man by building a position that your opponent does not hold, and then tearing it down. Much more difficult is intelligently addressing someone's actual position. This requires a good working knowledge of the opponent's position. (It is my considered opinion that they are afraid of learning what we have to say.) Putting words in someone's mouth is a form of the straw man fallacy. Some people claim to have "debunked" creationary articles, but the statements they made had nothing to do with the post in question. I saw one jasper humiliate himself on more than one occasion by attacking a position that he claimed creationists held, but the article he ignored refuted his claim! Another aspect of the straw man fallacy is misrepresentation. Many atheists and anti-creationists are very brazen about doing this. They are not only ignorant of what we teach and believe, but are often uninformed about the evolutionary beliefs that they try to defend.
  • Appeal to motive. This presumes to know what is in someone's heart and mind. It seems that just about everyone does this to some extent, but it has no place in a serious discussion. Essentially, "You're doing this because...".  I've been attacked along the lines of this: "You're afraid to debate me because you know your worldview won't withstand the criticism of one atheist, ever!" That critic is a proven liar, has been demonstrated to be unfamiliar with rational thought, and blasphemed God several times. The example included the bifurcation (either/or) fallacy. (I did say they combine fallacies, didn't I? Yes, yes I did.) He not only claims to know my motive, but ignored possible reasons that I refuse to debate him. Apparently, the fact that refusing to give him a significant expenditure of intellectual energy and my time was not considered as a possibility. Watch for some form of, "You're saying/doing this because...", they're being gratuitously fallacious and manipulative.
  • Arbitrary assertions. People will make statements based on their opinions, but many are unable to support them. This can can make the one making the assertions appear intelligent, but is often combined with other errors in thinking. Further, in their quest to pummel creationists into submission, do not be surprised if you are directly lied to — and lied about. It's who they are, and they act according to their nature. 
  • Prejudicial conjecture. Seems like everyone has an opinion to express, but many times, the opinion does not have a good working relationship with facts. Basically, someone does not have knowledge about a subject, but dislikes it and says something negative against it with biased wording. Atheists do this a lot. 
  • Genetic fallacy. Simply rejecting something because of its source. An outlandish example came from a professing atheist who wanted me to know that he is more intelligent than me. I furnished a link, and he rejected it because it came from creationists. I informed him that he used the genetic fallacy. This self-styled genius asked, "What does genetics have to do with this?" Also, I've seen a hater of creationists state that he had no need to read creationary material or attend a conference because he "knows that they're going to say". He managed to combine the genetic fallacy with appeal to motive — and having a godlike ability to know the future. However, be aware that it is not fallacious to reject material from sources that are proven untrustworthy.
  • Red herring. This is a distraction technique, and related to the irrelevant thesis fallacy. We can have, say, a post about how geological unconformities are evidence for the Genesis Flood. The mocker comes along and makes arbitrary, faith-based assertions, and is countered. Then he or she ignores the responses and hijacks the thread, demanding responses to his or her misunderstanding of genetic degradation. Huh? Sometimes, they do not even bother with the subject of a post or article in the first place, and ask questions (or make claims) that have nothing to do with the subject. They demonstrate that they are not interested in answers, and have no interest in learning the creationary perspective (Proverbs 18:2 ESV).
  • Redefinition. I touched on this before, when anti-creationists conflate on the word evolution and call us "science deniers". This also applies to redefining words to suit their own ends. It's not just in the creation-evolution controversy, either, and can apply to a casual discussion. It is very helpful to nail down what each person in a discussion means by a particular word or phrase, and watch for a change in definition.
  • Bonus contribution from Charlie Wolcott, which he calls Shifting the Spotlight. Anti-creationists try very hard to put and keep us on the defensive (as in "change the subject and attack"). The moment anyone dares to challenge or question the evidence, logic, and reasoning of anti-creationists, they get on the prod. Do not let them put you on the defensive. Instead, keep the spotlight on the creationist position, not their own. It shows how much faith they truly have in their worldview and how little confidence they actually have in it. It also show how little they know about their views and the science behind them (as well as the philosophy of their paradigm) and their inability to defend it. EDIT: Consider the comment made by this anti-creationist when he shared the post to his own Page that exists for the purpose of ridicule. He does not read the material he attacks.
Appeal to authority. I'm listing this one separately because it leads into some mighty important material. This fallacy has several facets. The most obvious is when people will cite someone who has no training in a field, such as when Krauss, Dawkins, and other atheists pontificate about the God they deny (Psalm 14:1). In a similar manner, I've been ridiculed for not mixing biblical truth with evolution because the Roman Catholic Pope believes in evolution. (No citation was given.) I don't care what the Pope says, I believe the Bible, you savvy?

Some people look to Bill Nye for scientific knowledge, and appeal to him as an authority on things for which an alleged "science guy" should be a source of knowledge. I've got some bad news for you, sunshine, but Nye does not have advanced science degrees. Worse, he is more interested in promoting leftist causes and atheism than actual science. Back in the old days, he did decent work performing observable science on television. Referring to Nye is not a guarantee of accurate scientific information, especially since he has been wrong many times. The lab coat maketh not the scientist.

Additional problems with appealing to authority include the simple fact that an expert can be wrong, may have modified views since a statement was made or a book was published, has views that other experts in the field consider outlandish (i.e., Erich von Daniken's ancient astronaut claims are rejected by archaeologists, and are shown to be lacking in facts, so he should not be cited), and so on.
Exercise: spot the fallacies in point (1) of this diatribe.

The Scientific American Bundle of Fallacies and False Science

Although written in 2002 by then editor-in-chief and non-scientist John Rennie, the article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" still makes the rounds. In fact, it was recently posted again at The Question Evolution Project. You can tell it is biased and propagandistic by the loaded terminology in the title, and things go downhill from there. Using this article against creationists is a fallacious appeal to authority, as you'll discover down the trail. 

Now it's time to give you some resources. First, the article was refuted by Dr. Sarfati at Creation Ministries International. You can read it by clicking on "15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American". Something I have been saying for a long time is that I am convinced that activities by anti-creationists, including that propaganda piece, are efforts to silence creationists through ridicule, appealing to emotion, and by poisoning the well. In a more overt move stifle thought, Scientific American threatened CMI with a lawsuit! CMI was not willing to accept bullying by those secularists.

Some more material that I'd be much obliged if you'd read is a 3-part series by Dr. Jason Lisle. He discusses several logical fallacies in the SA article, and he also discusses some scientific facts that contradict Rennie's claims. To read this, begin with "15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 1)". The second article is linked at the end of the first. Same with the second article linking to the third. I like it when things happen that way, nice and convenient.

The drawback is that these informative articles are much longer than the one they are refuting, so fill your canteen and load up your saddlebags. They are lengthy, but well worth your time. This here article before your very eyes, as well as those linked, can also help you see that many anti-creationists are uninformed about what we teach and believe. But their ignorance does not stop them from claiming that they are "debunking" creationists. To revisit my earlier analogy with water, what they are doing more closely resembles a gorilla splashing in a wading pool. With a bit of education and perseverance, we do not need to accept bullying and intimidation from anti-creationists. Oh, and the title, "How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted" — they're not.


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