List of Common Fallacies by Creationists

[hammegk]

I agree with one statement you made: If I was dumb enough, I would actually try to engage you in a constructive debate.

 

[Orwell]

I agree with one statement you made: If I was dumb enough, I would actually try to engage you in a constructive debate.

Fair enough.

 

[merphie]

So am I. Unless by "advocate" you meant one of the high profile leaders or people who are behind the current drive to get ID included. My coworker is not one of those. However, he supports the people who are. He thinks that ID should be taught in American public schools.

So he advocates something that is not compatible with his religion? I'm speaking of the lead which seems to be like the Discovery Institute. Which I understand to be a Christian organization. I mean part of their "evidence" against evolution is the Noah flood. Which is Christian in origin.

Interesting. I will make a mental note.

 

[Meadmaker]

So he advocates something that is not compatible with his religion? I'm speaking of the lead which seems to be like the Discovery Institute. Which I understand to be a Christian organization. I mean part of their "evidence" against evolution is the Noah flood. Which is Christian in origin.

Interesting. I will make a mental note.

See to it you do.

The guy in question is a sharp guy. He has an engineering PhD. He understands his religion. He thinks he sees evidence of design in the function of life. He supports the efforts of others who also see evidence of design in the function of life, even if he doesn't agree with them on theological issues.

Is that so hard to grasp?

 

[merphie]

See to it you do.

The guy in question is a sharp guy. He has an engineering PhD. He understands his religion. He thinks he sees evidence of design in the function of life. He supports the efforts of others who also see evidence of design in the function of life, even if he doesn't agree with them on theological issues.

Is that so hard to grasp?

His resume' is of not interest and I don't think has any bearing on this dicussion.

Yes it is difficult because the two religions are not compatible with each other. His designer is different from the other guys. Essentially they are not teaching the same thing.

If I was Christian I would not want my kids taught that life started on the back of a giant turtle. (Or whatever his religion teaches) I would want the genesis account taught.

From what I have seen the ID political movement in the USA (Hereafter, "ID movement") is a Christian version. Maybe he does understand his religion, but he could have no clue as to what they ID movement is about.

I could be wrong, but everything I have seen leads me to this conclusion.

 

[Meadmaker]

Your avatar seems to have developed a new attitude.

This thread started with fallacies made by creationists, all of which were accurately described. However, the other side also has fallacies of its own, the chief of which is in the assertion that ID can be equated with creationism.

 

[merphie]

Your avatar seems to have developed a new attitude.

This thread started with fallacies made by creationists, all of which were accurately described. However, the other side also has fallacies of its own, the chief of which is in the assertion that ID can be equated with creationism.

yeah, I liked the movie and I figured the character fits my personality more.

I am not convinced that ID is not creationism. For all I have read the political movement in the USA seems to be creationism with key words deleted.

Of course, I could be wrong but so far I have not seen convincing evidence to lead me to believe otherwise.

 

[slingblade]

Your avatar seems to have developed a new attitude.

This thread started with fallacies made by creationists, all of which were accurately described. However, the other side also has fallacies of its own, the chief of which is in the assertion that ID can be equated with creationism.

I'm not sure that's a fallacy. Intelligent design implicitly proposes creation of the earth by someone or something unknown.
Or are you suggesting that ID proponents also postulate an Intelligent Independent Contractor?


...the mind boggles at the union dues, alone....

 

[Meadmaker]

Intelligent design includes creationism, but is not limited to it. Of course, "creationism" isn't always a well-defined term. I think, however, that creationism implies that at least some organisms were created whole. During the Dover trial, a passage from a book was cited that said "fish with fins, birds with feathers" etc. That's creationism.



Guided evolution is not creationism, but it is intelligent design.

By the way, Merphie, are you sure about the Discovery Institute and Noah's flood? I only checked their web site briefly, and I saw no mention of the flood.

 

[merphie]

Intelligent design includes creationism, but is not limited to it. Of course, "creationism" isn't always a well-defined term. I think, however, that creationism implies that at least some organisms were created whole. During the Dover trial, a passage from a book was cited that said "fish with fins, birds with feathers" etc. That's creationism.

Guided evolution is not creationism, but it is intelligent design.

By the way, Merphie, are you sure about the Discovery Institute and Noah's flood? I only checked their web site briefly, and I saw no mention of the flood.

Do you agree with creationism? I don't understand why you are defending it so much.

Granted I would agree that ID and creationism is largely based on fallacies.

However most of the talk I have heard from people preaching ID have been Christians. Which I would believe they are referring to the bible. I don't believe your friend would be a follower of Hindu (Or whichever) and preach the Christian view.

If you read such sites as http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/why_didnt_they.html

They would seem to agree with my statements.

As far as the Discovery Institute I wouldn't really know what is on their site. I haven't been bored enough to read it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you agree with creationism? I don't understand why you are defending it so much.

You truly don't understand, do you? I am not defending creationism. I'm defending Intelligent Design. Well, "defending" might not be the right word. I'm trying to get people to see that there is a difference between the two, so that appropriate arguments can be used against, or I suppose for, them.

I am also defending it in one, true, sense. I am defending religion in general from overzealous "scientists" who think that "science" somehow contradicts religion. It might contradict a few sorts of religious claims, such as biblical literalism, but you can be a good Christian and a good scientist at the same time.

However most of the talk I have heard from people preaching ID have been Christians.

Most of the people I meet every day are Christians. We live in a nation where Christians are the majority.

Actually, most of the people I meet who talk about ID are Jews, but I figured that for the purpose of this conversation that was basically the same thing, since the creation part is common to the two religions.

My Hindu friend would absolutely put no credence in Christianity, but ID doesn't have anything to do with Christianity, except for the fact that many Christians believe it. My Hindu friend also believes in the immortality of the soul. Most of the people I meet who talk about the immortality of the soul are Christians, but it is hardly a belief unique to Christianity.

I'm guessing, and someone can correct me if I am wrong, that if you were in an Arab nation, most of the people you met who talked about ID would be Muslim.

As far as the Discovery Institute I wouldn't really know what is on their site. I haven't been bored enough to read it.

You haven't?

I'm speaking of the lead which seems to be like the Discovery Institute. Which I understand to be a Christian organization. I mean part of their "evidence" against evolution is the Noah flood. Which is Christian in origin.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you read such sites as http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/why_didnt_they.html

Back in the 1980s, I remember arguing on a BBS system about creation vs. evolution. I noted, to a creationist or two, that if they wanted to understand evolution, that it would be a good idea to read books about evolution written by people who supported evolution. They would read Jack Chick pamphlets and would say they understood evolution.

The same applies here. If you want to understand intelligent design, try reading the writings of people who support ID. Their detractors, like the people at Panda's Thumb, are really lousy at explaining it.

 

[merphie]

Back in the 1980s, I remember arguing on a BBS system about creation vs. evolution. I noted, to a creationist or two, that if they wanted to understand evolution, that it would be a good idea to read books about evolution written by people who supported evolution. They would read Jack Chick pamphlets and would say they understood evolution.

The same applies here. If you want to understand intelligent design, try reading the writings of people who support ID. Their detractors, like the people at Panda's Thumb, are really lousy at explaining it.

I've read all of the creationist claims index on Talkorigins.org.

I generally try to understand my enemy as well and way day will get to the Discovery Institute. It's not a priority.

 

[merphie]

You truly don't understand, do you? I am not defending creationism. I'm defending Intelligent Design. Well, "defending" might not be the right word. I'm trying to get people to see that there is a difference between the two, so that appropriate arguments can be used against, or I suppose for, them.

I am also defending it in one, true, sense. I am defending religion in general from overzealous "scientists" who think that "science" somehow contradicts religion. It might contradict a few sorts of religious claims, such as biblical literalism, but you can be a good Christian and a good scientist at the same time.

I believe I understand your position.

I don't know if I would say "overzealous". As an atheist I believe religion is another superstition that should be forgotten. ("As an atheist" is meant to declare my standing and not to define what an atheist is)

My point being that maybe the "overzealous" scientist are just those who see religion as I do and are trying to get rid of it. Maybe their methods aren't the best.

Most of the people I meet every day are Christians. We live in a nation where Christians are the majority.

Actually, most of the people I meet who talk about ID are Jews, but I figured that for the purpose of this conversation that was basically the same thing, since the creation part is common to the two religions.

I would hope so. Jesus was a Jew and they probably crucified him for hypocrisy. He just had a good PR staff.

My Hindu friend would absolutely put no credence in Christianity, but ID doesn't have anything to do with Christianity, except for the fact that many Christians believe it. My Hindu friend also believes in the immortality of the soul. Most of the people I meet who talk about the immortality of the soul are Christians, but it is hardly a belief unique to Christianity.

Agreed, but that is a very small point. The religions are otherwise incompatible in their beliefs.

I'm guessing, and someone can correct me if I am wrong, that if you were in an Arab nation, most of the people you met who talked about ID would be Muslim.

You haven't?

No, my opinion was based on other things I have read. Articles, news, debates, etc.