Keep Pressure on Anti-Creationists
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Many biblical creationists have encountered misotheists who act like they have amazing super powers that should make us shake in our cowboy boots. We need to stop allowing them to put us on the defensive, and use truth and reason to put the pressure on them.
 |
| Credit: Flickr / zimpenfish (CC BY 2.0) |
As a side note, I seldom refer to skepticism. In one sense of the word, people who are skeptical about something are willing to evaluate reasons for a claim. (People should have healthy skepticism, but unfortunately, too many professing Christians are gullible about "miraculous" claims, including the chalk that did not break.) In my experience, a scoffer is mostly synonymous with a mocker, and rejects anything that is said.
Ironically, they are so determined to hate and ridicule, they actually prove us right many times! I keep telling myself to stop giving them attention, but they generously provide many excellent examples of bad logic and bigotry. If the owner of that Page would provide her name and address, I would send her a fruit basket.
Logical Thinking is for All of Us
It may seem to some that logical (critical) thinking is a hobby horse of academics and scientists, smoking pipes in their sitting rooms, discussing things that are only interesting to themselves and useful to no one. That's the opposite of reality. Although the dullard intellectual types I portrayed probably exist, God gave us minds and expects us to use them.
I freely admit that there are many people smarter than me. Even so, with my life experience and education, I can easily see lack of logic, especially in political matters — a subject upon which I'd better stifle myself. After this was written, I had an experience that prompted a separate article that shows how some people are unwilling to think, they get vicious when cornered. If you're interested, see "Logical Thinking and the Lack Thereof".
Arbitrary Assertions and Presuppositions
People who claim to operate from science and reason may be surprised to learn that everyone has presuppositions, which are things that we take for granted and have not been empirically tested. These are incorporated into someone's Weltanschauung — okay, I learned a new word that I can't pronounce. Anyway, presuppositions are important to a person's worldview. It's how we interpret things, respond, and basically live our lives. If someone says, "I don't have a worldview", the worldview was just expressed and the statement is self-refuting!
Interestingly, some presuppositions are erroneously used to support other presuppositions. Keep an eye out for it, and you can see how logical fallacies are thrown into the mix. (I'll keep saying it because I want all y'all to catch on: Learning basics about logical fallacies is important, but is not overly difficult.) Professing atheists claim to use reason and logic, and by virtue of their rejection of the Creator, they are somehow more intelligent than Christians and creationists. Those presuppositions are not empirically tested, but taken for granted by misotheists.
 |
| Atheists who refuse to consider the material pretending that biblical creationists cannot be fair with observed data. How appropriate. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (Click for larger, unedited source is here) |
Creationists have been accused of "lying about evolution" many times. The accusers have not been able to demonstrate lying or intent to deceive (something I have discussed before that lying to get people to believe in God is utterly absurd), nor are they willing to admit that lying is different from errors, disagreements, and dislike of what is being said.
Asking Questions
When skeptics make assertions, it is useful to challenge them with specific inquiries. Students can respectfully ask their instructors appropriate questions when deep time and evolutionary assumptions are presented as established facts, but when unbelievers do this, we need to ask them more probing questions.
Doing so can help chip away at the foundations of their worldview, and we can help them realize that their arbitrary assertions and naturalistic presuppositions are actually irrational. Christians and creationists also have presuppositions comprising our worldview. The difference is that we presuppose the inerrant Word of God — at least, we should to do that.
When posting articles and videos about the Genesis Flood and how the geological evidence supports what is observed far better than secular deep-time beliefs, creationists are often met with ridicule. The Flood never happened. Because atheism. No need to examine science and logic because creationists are morons. (Many refuse to even consider the scientific facts that they claim to desire, which is an excellent illustration of Romans 1:18-22). In the video Dinosaur Extinction: Noah's Flood or an Asteroid?, several questions are raised about the common belief that the Chicxulub asteroid impact theory cause the dinosaur extinction. It is not settled science, is not the consensus, and is infested with difficulties.
Similarly, from this source about the formation of stars:
Yes, astronomers can see stars forming in far off parts of the cosmos. No, they can't observe the process from beginning to end because of the time it takes. Which means Creationist idiots can bay "no one has ever seen a star form!". Just like they bellow that no one has ever observed evolution. Nothing like being an ignoramus in multiple scientific disciplines.
This is an emotional reaction, which leads to refusing to consider the evidence — or even read the linked article that was written by an astronomer who is a creationist. Because atheism. We are also wrong because of anonymous ipse dixit. I am convinced that many of these folks are compelled to disagree because of their hatred for us, and especially from their hatred of God in us.
When dealing with someone who is not hell-bent on contradiction, that person could be asked, "How do they know that stars are forming in this location?" It turns out that nobody ever has seen it, and it is inferred because of materialistic, cosmic evolutionary, and deep-time presuppositions.
Some Other Questions
- Here is an item from quite a different source. A collection of "scary" clips includes "communicating with the spirit world" using a candle, and the belief is that if the flame changes, a spirit is manipulating it. How do you know that spirits play with candles? The presupposition is actually quite silly, and in this clip, even the narrator seems suspicious that the whole thing is a hoax.
- We have often encountered anti-creationists who denigrate arguments from the design work of the Master Engineer. Although design is obvious, atheistic and evolutionary dogma dictates that things only appear designed, so there is no God (they use a faulty appeal to authority). Ask what empirical method was used to reach that conclusion.
- Following up on the above point, they should be challenged to show how something with specified complexity like the kidney evolved through time, chance, random processes, mutations, and so on. As I said, when presented with an article or video, scoffers seldom give the material serious examination. If they had, they would realize that in many cases, the material creationists use cites evolutionists who admit that they have no idea how something came about. Universal common ancestor evolution is simply assumed, then they build on that. Note that the narrative is more important than facts or truth in many cases.
- Some evolutionary explanations should be carefully read or heard for weasel words and evasion, including scientists think, possibly, consensus, maybe, it could be, and so on. I reckon the worst offender is (whether used directly or indirectly) it evolved. Those are not statements of science.
- Misotheists often rant that evolution is a fact, then mock us with something like, "Question Evolution Day? Why not have Question Gravity Day, too? Haw, haw, haw!" However, such a vacuous taunt shows ignorance of both science and logic, and it is an invalid comparison. After all, gravity is testable, repeatable, observable — hallmarks of operational science. Evolutionary speculations are constantly changing and disputed even among experts. Meanwhile, anti-creationists lasso something they pilfered from other creationists and use it, no matter how irrelevant or outdated.
Also, someone who claims that evolution is a proven fact does not know how science works! It falsifies things, but does not prove anything.
I digressed again, didn't I? The first suitable question for this part is, "If evolution were true and settled science, why are there so many retracted peer-reviewed papers?" More than that, "Why is there so much fraud by evolutionists?" Although the inquirer will probably receive the "science is self-correcting" non-answer, consider asking, "Why are so many candidates for the evolutionary family tree are reclassified and rejected?", such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, and many others. - Evolutionists made assertions about how we evolved with our three basic "primal fears". How do they know? Is there evidence? For an excellent example of what we're talking about here, take a look at "Can Evolution Explain Software? 2.0".
- The Angry Atheist Monkey image is appropriate for another, "The kidney is complex! Therefore, it couldn't have evolved! Because we should listen to creationist twits who never studied evolutionary biology". Yes, someone really said that.
Although this article was not supposed to be a logic lesson, I want to point out that this example has an abusive ad hominem (a staple of misotheists' rhetoric), as well as genetic, prejudicial conjecture, and straw man fallacies. Several questions leap to mind: "Are evolutionary biologists better than regular biologists? If so, why? Can we expect evolutionary biologists to be objective and driven by science? Will they use circular reasoning to promote naturalistic presuppositions? Did you know that the article on kidneys was written by Dr. Jerry Bergman, who has numerous degrees and publishing credentials? Why do you assume that creationists are 'twits' and have 'never studied evolutionary biology'?" It is likely that any replies will be non-answers (or even abuse) mired in bigotry.
By the way, even though they have had opportunities, angry atheists like this have not considered people like Joel Tay and Patricia Engler. These are just two of many who have made a concerted effort to learn what evolutionists teach.