The thing is, if Monty Python has shown us anything, it’s that an argument isn’t the automatic gainsaying of the other’s position, it’s “a series of statements intending to establish a compromising position.” (slightly paraphrased) I think that’s what we need more of. We need more AFFIRMATIVE interaction, and less NEGATIVE interaction. We should be emphasizing what we have in common rather than what divides us.

(more…)

The Creationist ministry website, Answers in Genesis, has developed some rather shrewd tactics for combating modern science. Occasionally, I check into their site to prepare myself for possible counter-arguments when debating Creationists — invariably, most Creationists eventually discover AiG. When they do, they copy-paste and ditto-head the text like they were on Rush Limbaugh’s television show.

The articles themselves are extremely well-written, semantically. The logical fallacies are well-hidden, lies by omission well-crafted, and outright lies and fabrications are glazed over so finely that you could probably sell it at a fine French Pastry shop. But as much as you may glaze a horse-apple, at the end of the day it’s still horse-shit.

So today, I went there and picked a random article from the ticker at the top. I chose Georgia Purdom’s “If human and chimp DNA are so similar … ” found here: ( http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna ) (more…)

This is a claim I hear a lot.

“Evolution is an unproven theory!”

“There’s no evidence for the conjecture of Evolution.”

“Evolution is unsupported.”

This is, of course, generally spoken/written by people with their head buried deep in the sands of the book of Genesis.

First off, I’d like to open with some testimonial propaganda. This is a self-admitted Appeal to Authority. I want to present, for the record, the general opinion of the science community regarding the status of the theory that they developed (they would know, after all, right?). (more…)

The article author severely misunderstands the scientific process. No one has “proven” evolution in the same way that no one has “proven” gravity or electromagnetic theory or quantum physics. Nothing in science is ever “proven” because science isn’t in the business of proving things. It’s in the business of DIS-proving. Much like a sculptor carves into a piece of stone, science improves itself by discarding bad theories and keeping those that withstand the culling blade of scientific scrutiny.

Evolution has withstood over 150 years of scrutiny. Scientists all over have attempted to disprove this scientific theory since Darwin postulated it back in the late 1800s. Is evolution unproven? Yes. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, both experimental and observational, that supports it. If the Creationists are wrong, then all of society suffers from having a crippled view of scientific process. If evolutionists are wrong AND God believes that evolution is indeed on contrast to His will, then the evolutionists alone will have suffered.

But there is plenty of room to have both a belief in the well-supported theory of evolution AND believe in the remainder of the Bible beyond the creation myth. Besides, there are plenty of portions of the Bible that are no longer followed literally. Why should this be any different?

The author further attempts to polarize, to divide, our society on this issue by appealing to your emotions and loosely associating evolution with the moral problems society faces today. Don’t buy into it. This is a common tactic of propaganda when people are trying to control you. Stick with the facts. Stick with observable reality. No one is telling you to give up your faith, but don’t give up your ability to think rationally either.

That said, debating an issue that has been tied into an individuals faith will inevitably turn personal for them. It’s unfortunate that religious organizations (such as creationist supergroup extraordinaire AiG) have intentionally tried to tie issues of science (old earth, evolution, abiogenesis, etc.) tightly to the reins of their Holy text. It is important to remember that, when arguing these issues, it is quite easy to degenerate to a battle of gainsaying. There are as many, if not more, websites and materials out there that a YEC will use as support for their argument, and often it can take an inordinate amount of time to de-tangle exactly why the source they are referencing is incorrect. Sometimes you get lucky with an explicit refutation, but more often than not, a counter-refutation will be found somewhere else.

Bottom line — sticking with the issues is often a fruitless attempt when debating YEC’s. Remember, we are not dealing with a rationally minded group of people here. It can often be more effective, depending on their method of arguing, to establish logically why their arguments are incorrect. The goal is to clear up the misrepresentation that their beliefs are based on anything except their faith. (Note: for more information, check out my page about logical fallacies.)

One other point, before we begin, is that learning how to spot logical fallacies can help you avoid them yourself. It’s very embarrassing to point out someone else’s fallacy and then have them (or a bystander) point out that you had unknowingly used the same fallacy yourself. Just remember that the point of spotting fallacies isn’t to specifically to attack your opponent, but rather to level the playing field.

Some favorites, as arbitrarily assessed by my experience: (more…)

These are listed in no particular order, and there are likely some that I have not yet thought of, as well (But will add later!) (more…)

Part of constantly standing up for Observable Reality ™ means doing a lot of research: reading blogs (Badastronomy, ERV, PZ Myers), information aggregates (TalkOrigins, AigBusted, AnswersInCreation) and reading about the opponent as well (AnswersInGenesis, Institution for Creation Resarch, True Origins). This series of blogs (and I’m not sure how many there will be) will highlight some strategies, tactics, and talking points for getting involved with YEC’s. (more…)

First, in response to a blog by Dinesh D’Souza: Pat Robertson and I discuss Atheism (Which is kind of like two fratboys discussing childbirth), 2 comments (1 response to another commenter, and the other to the article) (more…)

Full disclosure: I read your article from a link on rationalresponders.com and I do disagree with a lot of your comments, but I’m not here to flame you.

I *do* agree with you that evil is the product of individual choice, but I disagree with the idea of “evil.” “Evil” is a label that we appropriate to an incident, act, person, etc. after the fact, in retrospect, and is entirely relative. Ex: Is it evil to kill someone? How about in war? If you’re defending your family? I will agree that there are some acts (such as rape) that are pretty much indefensible — there aren’t any situations where rape would be conscionable, for example. The attribution of “evil” to any act does not necessarily require the existence of God OR Devil/Satan. I understand that it’s your specific perception of reality, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. (more…)

On October 12th, Answers in Genesis invited Wayne County to Examine the Evidence at Civic Hall here in Richmond. The conference claims that the Bible provides a complete explanation of the origin of life on earth, and attacks scientific evidence to the contrary. A small group of us attended a seminar to hear what they had to say. (more…)

]]> http://atheism.amhill.net/2007/10/26/pal-item-editorial/feed/