|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2001 : 21:10:38
|
I've had this saved as a Word file for a couple of years now, but I neglected to copy the author. I've done a web search for the title without success. I would really like to credit the author. Anyhooooo... here for your edification is a description of;
CREATIONIST DEBATING SCHEMA
The majority of Creationist arguments are intended to discredit evolution in various ways. Since they can't make a case for creationism, they attempt to dismantle
the case for evolution. This fallacious argument assumes that there are only two possible explanations :creation and evolution.
Here is a sampling of the techniques used in Creationist arguments. You will often see a large number of these techniques used in one presentation. A really gifted Creationist can often combine two or three of these techniques in a single paragraph.
1) INTERPRET ANY UNCERTAINTY ANYWHERE IN SCIENCE AS IMPLYING TOTAL UNCERTAINTY EVERYWHERE IN SCIENCE.
Science is by nature tentative. Anything on the cutting edge is going to have considerable uncertainty attached to it. Anything science is certain about now will be found to have had considerable uncertainty attached to it at some point in history. As soon as any evidence of any uncertainty is found, present it and claim that scientists therefore don't know what
they are talking about.
2) TRUMPET ANY MISTAKES MADE BY ANY SCIENTIST, AND IGNORE THE FACT THAT THESE MISTAKES ARE CORRECTED.
Most people in your audience will not be well versed in the history of science. You can flood an audience with accounts of mistakes in science, and accounts of things scientists thought that are now known not to be true. With enough such accounts, you can build a
superficially compelling picture of "Science Always Getting It Wrong". Even experts in the history of science will not be able to directly address all the examples you bring up. Anything left unaddressed can be waved in front of the audience as "not refuted". You
can then use the fact that something has been left unrefuted to claim that everything has been left unrefuted.
3) SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO YOUR CRITICS ANY WAY YOU CAN.
Remember, your position is indefensible. The only way you can present anything like a compelling argument is to make your opponents look ignorant. Force them to prove everything they say. If they refuse to accept the burden of proof, force them to prove they don't have to prove what they say.
4) ANY FACTS OR EXPLANATIONS NOT IMMEDIATELY AT HAND MAY BE REGARDED AS NONEXISTENT.
If a critic makes a statement about science and doesn't present all the evidence to prove it from the fundamental level on up, you can seize upon any missing step and declare the entire statement as "unproven" or "a wild guess". If a critic manages to refute any of your statements, ignore the refutation.
As soon as the refutation is no longer being actively presented, re-assert your claim. After all, the refutation's not right out there any more.
5) BURY YOUR OPPONENT IN QUOTES.
Nobody is an expert in everything. The more quotes you pull up, the greater the chance that your opponents will not have the knowledge or data to refute at least one of them. You can then emphasize the quotes not dealt with and announce that "science has no response to them". (Note that this will not work unless you have managed to shed the burden of proof, as advised in step 2.)
6) USE "CAFETERIA SCIENCE"
If you look around diligently enough, some scientist somewhere will say something that will bolster your case. Even at the rate of one oddball case in a million, you can accumulate literally thousands of quotes if you mine a long enough time period. In true
cafeteria style, you can seize upon these quotes and ignore the science that refutes these quotes.
7) FIND AN INSTANCE OF A SCIENTIST BEHAVING BADLY, AND USE IT TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT ALL SCIENTISTS WILL DO THE SAME.
Ideally, all scientists would base arguments against bad science on the science. Fortunately, scientists are human. Sometimes they will engage in personal attacks, censorship and other unsavory techniques. Use this fact to tar all scientists with the same brush, and also to make the claim that no crank scientists have been "refuted", but rather censored.
8) SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND THEORIES NEED HAVE NO EFFECTS EXCEPT WHERE CONVENIENT.
Whenever some bit of cafeteria science has implications you don't want to deal with, you are free to ignore them. For example, if you like the possibility that neutron radiation might have changed the ratios of radioactive elements and their decay products, ignore the fact that neutrons have observable effects elsewhere in nature.
9) WHEN CORNERED, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
Always have material from several different subjects ready to present. When you find yourself out of your depth in one, be ready to duck into another. Chances are, your opponent will not be an expert in that other subject. This is particularly true if you choose
subjects that are distantly related, such as cellular biology and astrophysics. Ideally, you will have set this dodge up while you have been burying your opponent in quotes.
10) WHEN REALLY CORNERED, CALL NAMES.
With sufficient imagination, any of society's ills may be attributed to the beliefs of "evolutionists". Ignore the fact that most, if not all, of these ills existed long before Darwin ever drew breath. Asserting links between evolution and such movements as Marxism, Communism and Nazism is a popular form of mud slinging. If you have been making use of technique #7, accuse your opponent of being as bad as the people you have been citing.
This is even more effective if you can manage to goad your opponent into a display of impatience, disdain or temper using any of these techniques.
11) WHEN AN EXPLANATION SHOWS YOU TO BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG, IGNORE THE EXPLANATION AND REASSERT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
This works on the principle that "Any Lie Repeated Often Enough Will Be Believed". It's also a very good way of goading your opponents into bouts of ill temper.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP!
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2001 : 21:56:13 [Permalink]
|
Yeesh! Sounds like the only way to survive a debate with a creationist is to either have a very strong poker face and be very well versed in all the sciences or be an android along the lines of Data from Star Trek:TNG.
"Necessity may be the mother of invention, but laziness is usually the father." -Bailey's First Law |
 |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2001 : 22:02:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yeesh! Sounds like the only way to survive a debate with a creationist is to either have a very strong poker face and be very well versed in all the sciences or be an android along the lines of Data from Star Trek:TNG.
"Necessity may be the mother of invention, but laziness is usually the father." -Bailey's First Law
It also helps to have a really hard forehead; you'll be bashing it against the wall a lot.
Nice 'sig', I wonder who came up with that one...
;^)
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 00:20:23 [Permalink]
|
Yes, I have seen that before. I took it to be a parody. As a matter of fact, I've seen it recently. Damn! I'm on about 4 different skeptic boards, and I'm sure that someone posted that and gave a link. This may take some time...
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 00:49:56 [Permalink]
|
Okay, found the post I was thinking of. It was over on the JREF board. Too long to post here. It's called "Think Like a Fundy". Its very similiar to the one you posted.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/fundy.html
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 05:01:30 [Permalink]
|
Sounds like someone detailing what the creationists are doing with their Wedge strategy of Philip Johnson. They know they can't win in the labs or the courtrooms, so they go to the court of public opinion. Anything to make people question science, then they can slip in underneath.
Here is a progress report by them
|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 12:19:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here is a progress report by them
Brrr!... that page is positively Orwellian.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
cygonaut
New Member
12 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2001 : 07:21:03 [Permalink]
|
You have to stomp on creationism and make them look stupid.
What.
No can do?
George
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2001 : 12:47:54 [Permalink]
|
Creationists are not necessarily stupid. They are ignorant of science and twist it to serve their purposes.
I enjoyed everything in this thread, including the quotations (long and short). Thank you all for taking the time to find them.
Creationists are afraid of the truth and spend their time in finding ways to counter science. They may succeed with the American religious public (or the religious public of other countries), but they will never make waves in scientific circles. Peer review has not even flinched about the beliefs of true believers.
When religious nuts get carried away, religious organizations such as the Puritans (in this country) and the Taliban (in Afganistan) appear on the scene. If you get children young enough, you will get idiotic ideas coming to the fore as dogma.
ljbrs   
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
cygonaut
New Member
12 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2001 : 13:39:22 [Permalink]
|
Creationists need evidence to present in court - not peer review.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
