More creationist mail (2002-10-20)

[Darth Wong]

Today's dumb-ass:

E-Mail: chrisbowyer@movieforums.com
Comments: Hello,

Been reading your site. Can't say I agree with most of it...heard most of these arguments before.

But you can't find anything to criticize besides the strawman distortion and accusation of hypocrisy below?

I just wanted to point out the thing that was bothering me most, however:

You repeatedly ask questions basically boiling down to "why would God do THIS?" You do this many, many times, actually, to serve as evidence against God's existence. Many paragraphs have been based around it.

Strawman. I ask that question not as a way of disproving God's existence, but as a way of explaining what's wrong with so-called "intelligent design" vague creationism theories which purport to explain unsolved mysteries but which actually do not. The non-existence of God, on the other hand, is a result of the logical principle of parsimony. Do not misrepresent peoples' arguments.

However, you also berate creationists for asking the same things in regards to irreducible complexity. You point out that just because we cannot right now see what the answer is, it does not mean one exists.

Of course. The theory explains all of the major issues. The fact that some mysteries still exist does not automatically lead to creationism. That is a serious logical fallacy of syllogism.

This is clearly a double-standard. When it suits you, you use the fact that no answer right now exists to put down the idea of God. When the same concept is applied against evolution through irreducible complexity, or other such things, you basically MOCK the question for its supposed arrogance in assuming that if no answer can be given, none exists.

Go back and re-read the relevant pages, this time without your defensive mechanisms in place.

I'm sorry, but that seems genuinely unfair. I have heard many arguments against the concept of God, and I can respect some of them as at least viable and, at the VERY least, internally consistent. But these methods are not something I can respect.

You disrepected them before you even read them. If you had not, then you would have recognized that my argument against God's existence is based on the logical principle of parsimony, not from identifying gaping holes in purported "unsolved mystery" explanations. Those holes are only identified in order to prove that so-called "intelligent design" does NOT fill in the gaps that it claims to.

I also have to wonder; what of the more philosophical concepts involved? Your site is almost wholly scientific...it seems to completely disregard philosophy, which is a terrible error. After all, seeing as how science is the study of the Universe, it can hardly tell us whether or not something exists outside of the Universe.

Irrelevant. The only branch of philosophy which is relevant to rational discussion is logic, and if you have a legitimate criticism of my logic, then make it. As for the question of whether something exists outside the universe, that is also irrelevant. If that "something" interacted with our universe, there would be observable evidence. If not, then it doesn't matter. Either way, your argument is unsound.

(sigh) ... they keep on crawling out of the woodwork (BTW, the previous one (the "Professor of Creation Science") hasn't gotten back to me yet).

[Wicked Pilot]

Instead of wasting your time repling to the more dumber of the creationist, why not just invite them to this forum. Here, your Sith Underlings can deal with them, while you simply relax and watch the slaughter.

[Darth Wong]

Instead of wasting your time repling to the more dumber of the creationist, why not just invite them to this forum. Here, your Sith Underlings can deal with them, while you simply relax and watch the slaughter.

Interesting idea. I wonder if they would actually bother signing up, though; they would probably take one look, say "oh, lots of infidels" and retreat, claiming that the board membership is too "dogmatic" to listen to their words of wisdom.

I'm still hoping that other guy gets back to me. I'm tired of debating generic morons on the issue; I would like to take on some guy who is in a somewhat higher position (if he teaches the subject at some religious school, that's a step up from your generic creationist).

[Evil Jerk]

Generic is what this Creationist has stamped all over him.
"Seen it all before" is what came into my head when I read that, especially the opening line.

[Darth Wong]

He E-mailed back already!

Hardly. Rather, I didn't feel the need to criticize anything besides the things I chose. I could easily take issue with many other things, but I would suspect there are better uses of your time. There are certainly better uses of mine for now. So, I restricted my email to the thing I thought most blatant.

Whatever.

Strawman. I ask that question not as a way of disproving God's existence, but as a way of explaining what's wrong with so-called "intelligent design" vague creationism theories which purport to explain unsolved mysteries but which actually do not. The non-existence of God, on the other hand, is a result of the logical principle of parsimony. Do not misrepresent peoples' arguments.

I didn't accuse you of using it to disprove it...by as mere evidence. There's a difference, IMO. However, that's wholly irrelevant to the point being made.

Go back and re-read the relevant pages, this time without your defensive mechanisms in place.

Now you're just making assumptions in place of arguments. I would suggest that if there are any defensive mechanisms here, there's all the reason in the world to believe they're on your end as much as mine.

Regardless, I went back as you "requested" (though it sounded more like an order; a little courtesy would help your case, methinks), and found this (again):

Do not expect courtesy from someone whose arguments you have dismissed without serious inspection. By initiating contact, you have accosted me; you cannot reasonably demand courtesy if you did so in a dismissive manner.

"Dr. Behe obviously doesn't suffer from low self-esteem. In fact, he seems to believe that he is omniscient! I say this because he apparently believes that if he can't personally figure out how a system could evolve gradually (or be reduced in complexity), then it must have been/impossible/ for it to do so!"

Now, you claim that your use of this SAME tactic is justified, unlike its pro-God counterpart, because it falls under parsimony. But that is dubious at BEST, and it is highly subjective. I could very easily say that I find it far simpler (and therefore more likely, by your own standard) to determine that certain levels of complexity have a Creator, than I can to assume that some explanation which no one has apparently even thought of yet exists out there.

Wrong. Behe says that undirected evolution is impossible. I do NOT say that God is impossible. You have no right to demand courtesy when you insist on distorting my position.

That's the problem with parsimony: likelihood in matters like this is a fuzzy area. You're using something very subjective to justify your own double-standard.

Parsimony is not subjective; it is a logical principle. In fact, the whole point of parsimony is that we must restrict ourselves to that which is necessary to explain objective reality. Your definitions of subjectivity and objectivity are obviously erroneous.

Just as lacking a response to the concept of irreducible complexity does not tell us that none exists, not having an explanation for all the inner-workings of humans does not tell us that none exists.

Irrelevant. Science is all about the simple question: can you come up with a BETTER theory? Creationists have utterly failed to do so, in fact, their theories have invariably been tremendously inferior to evolution theory in every objective aspect.

This is completely aside from the fact that ASSUMING irreducible complexity has some explanation in accordance with evolution is worthy of at least one raised eyebrow. I don't think I need to point out that you would likely not treat similar assumptions on the Creationist side of things all that kindly.

Wrong. Gaps in a workable theory which explains the vast majority of the evidence are acceptable. An unworkable theory which explains NONE of the evidence is obviously less worthy.

Irrelevant. The only branch of philosophy which is relevant to rational discussion is logic, and if you have a legitimate criticism of my logic, then make it. As for the question of whether something exists outside the universe, that is also irrelevant. If that "something" interacted with our universe, there would be observable evidence. If not, then it doesn't matter. Either way, your argument is unsound.

Incorrect. Here's why:

1 - Why would there be observable evidence? Surely it completely depends on what kind of interaction it had with this Universe. C.S. Lewis believed (or believes, rather) that God engrained us all with a Moral Law. Something like that would NOT be readily evident.

You don't understand. If there is no observable evidence, then there is no objective reason to believe in it.

2 - Who says there ISN'T observable evidence? Most historians agree that Jesus Christ was an actual person; that may very well be our observable evidence. Maybe. Maybe not. Dunno.

L. Ron Hubbard was a real person too. So what?

Out of curiosity: what WOULD constitute observable evidence of a Higher Power interacting with our Universes, in your mind?

Depends on how this higher power is defined. The evidence required to support a theory is invariably dependent upon the definition of that theory (obviously). Tell me about this higher power, and I will tell you what evidence is required. If you cannot define this higher power in such a manner that predictions can be made and falsification is possible, then it is nothing but an unfalsifiable tautology (since you claim knowledge of philosophy, you should recognize that this is a no-no).

They always think they're geniuses ...

[Coyote]

Instead of wasting your time repling to the more dumber of the creationist, why not just invite them to this forum. Here, your Sith Underlings can deal with them....

Interesting idea. I wonder if they would actually bother signing up, though...

That was something I was wondering about while going through the DarkStar debate and reading the onslaught of the Fitness Gerbils. Some of these guys are Tar Babys that just suck up time and energy best spent on site-generating or real world stuff... There's others here that could weed out the weak and clueless, leaving the serious challengers to float to the surface... As it is, sometimes I feel like someone has diverted a tank to crush an ant.

[Vympel]

I love history. Not very useful when it comes to creationism, but history MASSACRES the Bible. The L. Ron Hubbard example has me chuckling when I read it, but for showing up the "Resurrection" as the load of utter bullshit it is, history is wonderful.

[Oddity]

That's the problem with parsimony: likelihood in matters like this is a fuzzy area. You're using something very subjective to justify your own double- standard.

... is this guy sentient?

[Lagmonster]

I'm still hoping that other guy gets back to me. I'm tired of debating generic morons on the issue; I would like to take on some guy who is in a somewhat higher position (if he teaches the subject at some religious school, that's a step up from your generic creationist).

I'm interested in finding out who this 'other guy' is. Can anyone point me to the relevant thread (if it still exists)?

[NecronLord]

For more shameful Shame visit this post in the HoS {I put it there so I could change the poll} Suffice to say these fools get all their feeble and idiotic arguments out of books such as this one. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=4196
it is really hilarious

[Wicked Pilot]

Interesting idea. I wonder if they would actually bother signing up, though; they would probably take one look, say "oh, lots of infidels" and retreat, claiming that the board membership is too "dogmatic" to listen to their words of wisdom.

How about a new usergroup, a "Defenders of Science" if you will. You forward all your creationist bullshit to member of DoS, and they hand out quick and brutal Imperial Smackdowns. That way, you can concentrate your efforts on the smart creationist (an oxymoron if I ever saw one), while all the generic lame ass ones get delegated to your mighty and numerous Sith Underlings.

Dammit, we want a peice of the action too!

[Admiral Valdemar]

Geez, I know how you feel, Darth Wong.

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=37663

SeanG just won't take a bloody hint! You can hammer logic into him until he bleeds and still he won't take it in. He just posts outdated articles from creationists and expects us to wade through the crap that sometimes, isn't even in his favour.

I'm glad now that one of the professors I have for my major in biology with genetics and evolution is a total anti-creationist. Today he said something along the lines of "So this would be true of mutual evolution even if I were sitting here a thousand years from now, God forbid. Not that there is one."

Sorted bloke, gotta love those that speak their mind.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I can't stand that Sean. He now claims to have "conclusively shown" natural selection to be circular reasoning, and refers to more and more books for his "evidence." Praytell, why have their been no official creationist papers written in the scientific community? Because the only thing they do is PR, not research like real science. Why is that difficult to understand? They're a joke and creationists are a pain in the ass.

[Antediluvian]

Instead of wasting your time repling to the more dumber of the creationist, why not just invite them to this forum. Here, your Sith Underlings can deal with them, while you simply relax and watch the slaughter.

Interesting idea. I wonder if they would actually bother signing up, though; they would probably take one look, say "oh, lots of infidels" and retreat, claiming that the board membership is too "dogmatic" to listen to their words of wisdom.

I'm still hoping that other guy gets back to me. I'm tired of debating generic morons on the issue; I would like to take on some guy who is in a somewhat higher position (if he teaches the subject at some religious school, that's a step up from your generic creationist).

I was wondering if anything had happened with that creationist "professor".

And let us take care care of your light work, Mike. You work too hard already.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Since they won't comne to us, I say we should come to them. Join their forums and destroy their arguments.

[Master of Ossus]

Since they won't comne to us, I say we should come to them. Join their forums and destroy their arguments.

Such a mentality has spawned numerous counter-invasions in the past. It is best to deal with isolated ones that we invite here through e-mail, rather than mass groups and exoduses of vast numbers of forum-goers. Invite the ones that mail you, Mike, and we'll handle them. I just don't want another WCotC on our hands.

[Enlightenment]

Since they won't comne to us, I say we should come to them. Join their forums and destroy their arguments.

Wait for it...



No fscking board invasions. The return fire is more trouble than it's worth.

[Lagmonster]

I also disagree with invading other boards. However, I am more than willing to verbally slice up any creationists who wander around here looking for a fight.