Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 19076
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ccgr »

http://creation.com/arguments-evolution ... ld-not-use" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArchAngel »

Yeaahhh... no.

Most of what is mention is evidence for evolution, some of it is a gross misinterpretation on what is claimed, some are just not really claimed at all, and just flat out wrong.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Lazarus
CCGR addict
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by Lazarus »

Their "Arguments creationists should not use" article should probably be updated to include
"No appeals to the authority and scientific credentials of fiction writer and climate change denier Michael Crichton.".


I liked number twenty in particular. The "narrow-minded, blinkered approach" is when you don't believe in invisible mystical supernatural beings, apparently.

Lots of double-talk and conflating vastly different concepts as well. Pretty tragic.

Why do Christians sometimes seem to take on the job of the Great Deceiver when they try to spread the Light and Truth? Creation.com should be a laughingstock for Christians and Atheists alike.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArcticFox »

Arch, I'm calling you out, brother.

Judging from the timestamps, exactly 15 minutes passed from the time ccgr posted that link and the time you posted your response. There's no way you could have done a serious examination of the arguments posited in that article in that time.

Anyway, I won't go through and say that all of their points are right, but they do make several very good ones. Say what you want about Michael Crichton, he's absolutely right when he says “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” When people try to use "consensus" as an argument to support Evolution, they're committing a fallacy known as an "argumentum ad populum."

You would be amazed at how often I've seen this. In my gaming club, one of my friends is a high school biology teacher and he became absolutely incensed that anyone would question Evolution Theory and savagely attacked anyone arguing against it. His favorite argument: We know it's true because of consensus. (Followed by his second favorite argument: We know it's true because it's self evident... like knowing squirrels exist because I look outside and see squirrels. It got so bad one of our members, a legitimate, real, genuine scientist had to call him down. "Bro, we agree on the conclusion, but that isn't how science works.")
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3289
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ChickenSoup »

Wait, what? I was not aware that scientific consensus was an illogical basis for discussion of ideas?
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArcticFox »

First of all, there's no consensus.

Second, even if there were, there was once a consensus that the Earth was resting on the back of a giant turtle and that cats were witch familiars. Consensus =/= truth.

As it pertains to discussion of ideas, usually when people cite it in a debate, it's because they want to shut down a discussion, not share knowledge.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArchAngel »

ArcticFox wrote:Judging from the timestamps, exactly 15 minutes passed from the time ccgr posted that link and the time you posted your response. There's no way you could have done a serious examination of the arguments posited in that article in that time.
Doesn't require a serious examination. I perused, and most were repeated nonsense I've heard over. I kept an eye open for something that would catch my interest, but there was nothing so phenomenal, just a rehashing of creationist rhetoric I've had the misfortune of dealing with for the last 20 years.
ArcticFox wrote:Anyway, I won't go through and say that all of their points are right, but they do make several very good ones. Say what you want about Michael Crichton, he's absolutely right when he says “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” When people try to use "consensus" as an argument to support Evolution, they're committing a fallacy known as an "argumentum ad populum."
The point on consensus is a misrepresentation on what it means.
First, consensus is most definitely a part of science, but not in the way you mean or possibly even Mr. Crichton mean. It seems like a bit of a ridiculous statement from Crichton, there is a consensus among scientists among many things that are demonstrably part of science. Consensus is never pure, and never unquestionable, but it does exist. Is this to say there is no consensus about planets orbiting around the sun or molecular structure of water. Only the staunchest of pedants would raise protest on saying there isn't really "consensus," and they are most certainly part of science.

Peer review and peer consensus have a very important part to play in the scientific method. Now, consensus never means truth, but it should not be discarded when evaluating claims. If various experts come together, each having done either their own research or evaluated and replicated another's and all come to the same conclusion, that's something worth considering. If near all experts in the field say the same thing, that's worth considering. That means something. If a consensus exists, it's worth knowing who the consensus is among and why they have it.

And for Evolution, there is most certainly a incredibly strong consensus among scientists. Is that a reason to accept the theory? Not really, but it's something that should raise an eyebrow and get you looking into the evidence. And the evidence is the reason you should accept it.

There seems to be this almost active disregard for consensus, almost as if it's a sign of a conspiracy more than a sign of overwhelming evidence.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3289
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ChickenSoup »

Arctic. First of all.. Well, yes, there generally is a consensus about evolution among scientists, but that's not worth arguing because it's not the point in trying to make.

No one here (I think) would argue that consensus = truth. It is, however, an incredibly important tool. Disregarding it is foolish.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by Bruce_Campbell »

Yeah, the article literally ends like this:
Well, are there any arguments left for evolution? There is really only one: ‘I don’t want to believe in a Creator-God, I don’t want to be accountable to anyone for how I live, and evolution is the only alternative, so I am going to believe in that, come what may.’ A supplemental one from churchian evolutionists is basically, “I want to be respected by those people,” although no one should want respectability from those who believe we are rearranged pond scum, and it’s a vain hope anyway as Dawkins shows.
Yeah... call me closed minded, but I think I'm gonna pass on this one.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3289
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ChickenSoup »

*raises goblet in agreement*
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArcticFox »

ChickenSoup, I think I'm also addressing your concerns in this post, but if you feel like I' m not let me know and I'll respond directly.
ArchAngel wrote:Doesn't require a serious examination. I perused, and most were repeated nonsense I've heard over. I kept an eye open for something that would catch my interest, but there was nothing so phenomenal, just a rehashing of creationist rhetoric I've had the misfortune of dealing with for the last 20 years.
I dunno dude. It still sounds like judging a book by its cover. If the situation were reversed and I refused to read a link in detail, you'd call me on it, and you would be right to do so.
ArchAngel wrote:The point on consensus is a misrepresentation on what it means.
First, consensus is most definitely a part of science, but not in the way you mean or possibly even Mr. Crichton mean. It seems like a bit of a ridiculous statement from Crichton, there is a consensus among scientists among many things that are demonstrably part of science. Consensus is never pure, and never unquestionable, but it does exist. Is this to say there is no consensus about planets orbiting around the sun or molecular structure of water. Only the staunchest of pedants would raise protest on saying there isn't really "consensus," and they are most certainly part of science.
I've bolded the critical part I want to respond to. You're right in what you're saying, but every single time I've heard someone use "consensus" to defend their argument they are the ones treating it as if it were pure and unquestionable. They expect me to change my position purely because they've cited consensus and now the debate's supposed to be over. If indeed consensus is neither pure nor unquestionable, then how could it be used to shut down a discussion?

I believe that is what Mr. Crichton is saying. When he said that, I'm pretty sure he was discussing the issue of Global Warming, in which people often cite "consensus" as the reason you shouldn't disagree with them.
ArchAngel wrote: Peer review and peer consensus have a very important part to play in the scientific method. Now, consensus never means truth, but it should not be discarded when evaluating claims. If various experts come together, each having done either their own research or evaluated and replicated another's and all come to the same conclusion, that's something worth considering. If near all experts in the field say the same thing, that's worth considering. That means something. If a consensus exists, it's worth knowing who the consensus is among and why they have it.
Of course it's worth considering. I don't mean to come across as if it means nothing, but at the same time it is at most one single factor in a very complex and far-reaching subject. If everybody saw it that way, there'd be no problem. This is what I've most often observed:

A: "I don't agree with [Global Warming | Evolution | Whatever]"
B: "But scientists have reached a consensus on it."
A: "Well I don't agree. The evidence isn't compelling enough to me."
B: "BUT CONSENSUS!"
A: "There are some who don't agree, and I'm with them."
B: *eyeroll* "You don't understand science. You must be a [Zealot | Denier | Label]"
ArchAngel wrote: And for Evolution, there is most certainly a incredibly strong consensus among scientists. Is that a reason to accept the theory? Not really, but it's something that should raise an eyebrow and get you looking into the evidence. And the evidence is the reason you should accept it.
You mean your interpretation of the evidence is why you believe I should accept it.
ArchAngel wrote: There seems to be this almost active disregard for consensus, almost as if it's a sign of a conspiracy more than a sign of overwhelming evidence.
I see that too, and I think it's pushback because the other side tends to mash peoples' noses in consensus as if it were the ultimate armor-piercing argument.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArchAngel »

ArcticFox wrote:You're right in what you're saying, but every single time I've heard someone use "consensus" to defend their argument they are the ones treating it as if it were pure and unquestionable.
Not every time. Not from me, and I know I brought this up before, too.

I'm usually hesitant to mention it because it can often be interpreted as that's what it means and it's often the lazy man's route to arguing. It's quick and easy to point to the experts, but to argue to facts requires a large amount of effort and a sufficient knowledge of the material, which is honestly pretty science heavy. You know... because it's science. I'm not surprised you'd see it a lot.

But you have to ignore them for the same reasons you'd not accept consensus. It addresses people and not the evidence. Their arguments really say more about themselves than the ideas they are espousing.
ArcticFox wrote:You mean your interpretation of the evidence is why you believe I should accept it.
No. That sounds a treatment of religious text.
Look at the evidence. Not my conception of it. Just the evidence.
My understanding of it is that the conclusion of Evolution is as obvious as a round earth, just one level up in complexity.
You don't have to reach the same conclusion I do, but I have yet to see a good reason why not to. And really, this isn't about opinions. It's not like you can just agree to disagree on this. One of us is wrong, and possibly both.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArcticFox »

ArchAngel wrote: But you have to ignore them for the same reasons you'd not accept consensus. It addresses people and not the evidence. Their arguments really say more about themselves than the ideas they are espousing.
Truf.
ArchAngel wrote:No. That sounds a treatment of religious text.
Look at the evidence. Not my conception of it. Just the evidence.
My understanding of it is that the conclusion of Evolution is as obvious as a round earth, just one level up in complexity.
You don't have to reach the same conclusion I do, but I have yet to see a good reason why not to. And really, this isn't about opinions. It's not like you can just agree to disagree on this. One of us is wrong, and possibly both.
I agree that we can't both be right on this, but the answer isn't as self evident as one would hope.

Evidence and data have to be interpreted just like anything else. People back in the day measured the movement of the heavenly bodies and interpreted it (falsely) to mean that the Sun orbited the Earth. It isn't that they didn't look at the evidence. It's that they interpreted it incorrectly. (Worth noting is that there was a "consensus" about that, too.) The way we understand dinosaurs is constantly shifting because the way the existing data is interpreted changes over time. Bye bye, Brontosaurus.

It's always risky to assume that a person who disagrees with you must simply lack the same level of knowledge on the subject as you. Props to you, Arch, you come off WAY better than a buddy of mine who is an absolute condescending jerk when we discuss this issue and we've known each other for over 25 years. That said, the problem is the same. "You only disagree with me because you don't know what I know." It ain't that simple. Two people can look at the same set of data and come up with very different interpretations of what that data means. This is exactly why scientists often disagree about all kinds of things, even though they're all using the same stuff.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArchAngel »

I feel like I've been humiliated enough to learn a thing or two about being a condescending jerk. That not meaning I can't be at times.

I do agree on all those points. Which is why a n argument should take place around evidence. It is hard to get to that point, too.

If i may elaborate on your point about assuming ignorance in the opposition. It is good to not automatically assume the other person doesn't know enough, although that conclusion can be arrived ti in time, but it also doesn't mean all claims are equally valid. There are flat-earthers still around, and it is worth talking to them, but after evaluating both sides, they are most definitely not on the same standing.

But yes, I do think i know more about evolution than most here, but i'm open to someone demonstrating otherwise. That's not really a concern to me, if fact, it's exciting to talk to people who know more than me in at least some areas. It's an oppurtunity to learb and no small part on why I enjoy talking with you.
But, in all honesty, I think personally that you are ID and oppose evolution is a matter of religious bias. You want to believe in a creater god and you don't find evolution so compatible with that. And in no small part to some peoples rhetoric, your teeth has set against it something fierce. I think this because i remember being there and how much I disliked the "religion of evolution," and much of what you say seems to line up with that. I, of course, could be wrong.

I didnt respond to this before out of sheer oversight, but i didn't just take a couple peeks ay that article. I read enough to good idea on what's being said, especially the first half. For sanity, i had to resort to skipping, keeping an eye out for a point thats new or interesting. I'm not obligated to read every word of repeated rhetoric. The portion Bruce quoted is pretty representative of what's going on.

On a fun note, I'm in a chapel right now and everybody around is doing the rosary now. If i dont respond, it's because I was struck by lightning.I I feel a charge building up.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3494
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Post by ArcticFox »

ArchAngel wrote: But, in all honesty, I think personally that you are ID and oppose evolution is a matter of religious bias. You want to believe in a creater god and you don't find evolution so compatible with that.
Actually, this isn't the case. Plenty of people find it very simple to reconcile their Biblical beliefs with Evolution, and I used to be among them. Looking at Genesis as symbolic of Evolution is quite an easy thing. I didn't change my mind because of religion. I changed it because I found too many problems with the science.
ArchAngel wrote: And in no small part to some peoples rhetoric, your teeth has set against it something fierce. I think this because i remember being there and how much I disliked the "religion of evolution," and much of what you say seems to line up with that. I, of course, could be wrong.
One of my "buttons" is hypocrisy. I really find it distasteful and nothing gets my fuse burning hotter than people who are being simultaneously hypocritical and condescending. That's why when I got into that debate with my old friend, his attitude incensed me so severely it nearly ended our friendship. Now, I've admitted that I am too sensitive at times, but we all have our berzerk button and he was pounding it with his fist and holding it down.

So you're right in reading the intensity of my opinions on this, but not quite the target. I don't have a problem with people who choose to believe in Evolution for scientific reasons. I could certainly be wrong in my interpretation and some day I may change my mind again on the issue, as it isn't tied to my spiritual beliefs I have no emotional need to believe one way or the other on the matter.

The target of my frustration is people who claim to be absolutely justified because SCIENCE! And yet they themselves show a lack of using a scientific approach to the matter (I do not see you that way, in case you were wondering.) I have a problem when people try to shame me into agreement with them by screaming CONSENSUS! I have a problem when people act as though only the stupid or insane could disagree with Evolution (as my friend did) and yet can't even explain why THEY believe it beyond "It's just a simple fact."

Heck, I wish I could assert things as simple facts and make them true. If I could...
ArchAngel wrote: On a fun note, I'm in a chapel right now and everybody around is doing the rosary now. If i dont respond, it's because I was struck by lightning.I I feel a charge building up.
Rut roh... better get under one of those insulating pews...
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest