This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on January 30, 2009
I have been hugely entertained by reading an extended forum discussion responding to my post yesterday which was a paraphrase of several conversations I’ve had in the last few months. As one might expect, it was immediately objected that my protrayal was mere strawman and does not represent the ‘real atheist’ position. This begs a very interesting question: isn’t any argument put forward by an atheist a real atheistic position? It begs another question: if I did not represent the real atheistic position, why do so many atheists espouse it, engage in the same kind of tactics, and why did virtually every member of that discussion leap to corroborate exactly what I was detailing?
Indeed, virtually every aspect of my ‘paraphrase’ was reflected in the answers that spewed forth, from the hypersensitivity to perceived insults “lay off the ridicule” “that’s just arrogance” while barbs are flying from their own side “are you just some smart a– 12 year old kid who got a certificate in your local church “Defense of Christianity” Sunday School Class?” to the random ‘catch-all’ argument that proves atheism right, the smug reference to ‘ancient books’ such as “You base your thought process on a 1900+ year old set of desert scribblings.” Throw in the knee jerk attempt to force the theist to argue in the terms that the atheist himself is dictating, not the terms the theist is actually presenting, “what in the world does bible god have to do with the Big Bang?!? It is not in your bible, stop trying to hijack the BB theory and pretend that your god caused it.” Let’s not forget the constant ‘rebuttals’ that in fact we ‘don’t know’ and ‘can’t know’ from people who apparently are atheists, and not agnostics.
All these are variations of my paraphrasing.
A certain fellow at the beginning complains, “Except that on this forum, the “them” aren’t straw-men who just insult you and give one word answers while you give eloquent paragraphs.”
Now of course I wasn’t singling out this forum before I began. He is responding to another theist’s accusation that my paraphrase was apt. However, his complaint has little merit if this thread was representative. The only difference are the ‘one word answers’ but that is not a substantial difference because the ’50 word answers’ communicate the exact same sentiments as the one word answers. I could cite example after example. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on November 29, 2008
I was reading this news article from the Sydney Morning Herald entitled “Beware the Church of Climate Alarm” and found myself inspired to blog on it when I read from page two of the article:
Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that “we’re dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational”.
Human-caused climate change is being “promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance.”
I don’t know who this Plimer guy is so can’t speak to the man’s experience dealing with creationists who, ‘when challenged, become vicious and irrational.’ I have yet to meet a vicious creationist and of course, ‘irrational’ is in the eye of the beholder to some degree- if the litmus test for rationality is one’s view on evolutionary theory then that amounts to nothing more than circular reasoning ie, that is what is irrational.
Ironically, Plimer sees similarities between global warming proponents and creationists, when he really should see similarities between global warming proponents and evolutionists. The creationist example is wholly inapt even on his own terms- by his view, creationism is based on ‘holy books’ but global warming, we are told, is backed by hard, irrefutable science. In other words, ‘global warming’ is being defended by his own ilk, not by fruity creationists.
And I would be willing to say that global warming probably is backed by ‘hard, irrefutable science’ … when by ‘science’ we mean the bastardized and philosophically driven ‘methodology’ that passes as science today in contrast to true science which actually relies on empirical demonstration.
In short, Plimer is merely seeing in climatology the same kind of ‘science’ at work in evolutionary theory. This then is the irony: even the self-professed skeptics aren’t skeptical of everything.
Moreover, isn’t there some kind of moral to be drawn here? In so many cases evolution is advanced on the grounds that ‘so many scientists believe it’ and this is identical to the case often made for global warming: ‘How can so many scientists be wrong?’ And yet according to Plimer, they are wrong. Surely if so many scientists can be wrong regarding global warming, perhaps they might be wrong about evolutionary theory? Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on February 8, 2008
One argument familiar to both evolutionary and anti-evolutionary apologists is that there is over whether or not there is pressure on scientists not to openly explore intelligent design (henceforth, ID), even going as far as firing or dismissing professors and scientists. Evolutionists like to mock the notion by sneering that Evilutionary conspiracies don’t fly.
Now, there are many, many examples. Today I read news of one that has been in the making for some time on Worldnetdaily.com: Gonzalez Loses Tenure. Here we have a person exploring ID who was denied tenure and was not even allowed to defend himself in person, orally. Now, evolutionary apologists can say “Oh, hey, but there is no evidence that it was on account of ID.” That’s a bit of a silly thing to say since no evidence was allowed to be presented. However, we are aware of emails that would have served as evidence to the board, but even if not recognized by the board, we ourselves can judge for ourselves.
Here is a Discovery Institute page devoted to the affair. Evilutionists can produce their own, if they like. On that page is a document called “Intelligent Design Was the Issue After All” which contains email documentation, obtained by an open records request, showing just how clearly ID was a factor. I say ‘clearly’ knowing full well that clear or not, evolutionists will find it justified even if it was a factor, because, well, ID is not science. Who says? They say? On the evidence? … Or, is it perhaps because they control the educational establishment. Read the rest of the entry… »
