YEC Tactics

[Danmark]

The argument proposed is that many well known Young Earth Creationists employ questionable tactics to argue their point of view.

[rookiebatman]

Example #2

Ken Ham, in a new radio spot, out and out admits evolution is science and Creationism is faith. He aint gonna find scientific evidence of Creationism.

Creationist radio ad: Evolution cannot be debunked with reason | The Raw Story.

You cannot convince people that evolution is false with logic, according to the founder of the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

In a 60-second radio ad released Thursday, Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham admitted there was no scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrated that evolution was a lie.

But that didnt mean there wasnt solid evidence that evolution was a lie. The solid evidence just wasnt scientific.

We have solid proof in in our hands that evolution is a lie: the Bible, Ham explained. You see, we cant depend solely on our reasoning ability to convince skeptics. We present the evidence and do the best we can to convince people the truth of God by always pointing them to the Bible.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/08/ken-ham ... the-bible/
His "evidence" is his interpretation of the Bible, not scientific evidence. But this does not stop him from claiming he has "proof."

That mystical version of "methodology" is also explicitly stated on the Answers in Genesis website:

How can we determine if an argument is good or bad? For starters, is it consistent with the Bible? We can boldly proclaim the truth of the global Flood and the resurrection of Jesus Christ because they are recorded in Scripture. While other evidence confirms these accounts, the fact that they are part of Gods Word is the best evidence. On the other hand, there are certain ideas that the Bible plainly denies. We know that humankind is not inherently good, for instance, and that humans did not evolve from apelike creatures. We can discount these ideas because they both directly contradict the Bible.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... uldnt-use/

[Wootah]

Isn't it fair to say this thread is just an ad hominem?

[Box Whatbox]

Isn't it fair to say this thread is just an ad hominem?

I don't think so. It reads to me like taking some individual examples, and using them to try to demonstrate a pattern of evasiveness within a specific group, when these individuals are arguing their case. . (This is the important bit.)
An ad hom. would consist of saying something like 'YEC can't be true because (certain of) its supporters are dishonest, when they are not arguing for YEC'.
The distinction may be a subtle one, but it is worth clarifying.

Consider the Blue family from Greentown. There are a lot of them, and they are unanimous in claiming they all saw a dragon whilst on holiday in the Seychelles.
If I demonstrate that Fred Blue, Mary Blue and Sally Blue have all told lies about some things in the past, and then use that as 'evidence' that there wasn't a dragon in the Seychelles, that would be an argumentum ad hominem.
If I show that Mary's account of seeing the dragon, and Fred's account of seeing the dragon, and Sally's account of seeing the dragon, all contain similar evasive elements, that is not ad hominem, but a legitimate argument, because it attacks not the character of the persons, but the arguments they use to support the claim under consideration.
The examples given in this thread, (ISTM) are intended to demonstrate a pattern of evasiveness that some leading proponents of YEC employ in their arguments for the YEC case.

[wiploc]

Isn't it fair to say this thread is just an ad hominem?

I see it as a challenge.

We are publicly stating that every YEC argument is based on equivocation and sleight of mouth. And from that, we generalize: We believe that there are no decent arguments in support of YEC.

Are there any proponents of YEC who think they have an actual good argument? We invite them to bring it. We'll look at any argument presented, and either demonstrate the fatal flaws or acknowledge its goodness.

We don't expect, based on history, to be presented with any decent YEC arguments. But we'll give a fair shot to anything that comes.

If nothing comes, we'll take that as confirmation YEC has no decent arguments, and that the proponents of YEC realize this. Otherwise, they'd have presented their decent arguments.

While we wait for those hypothetical good arguments, we advertize our service so that it can't slip under the YEC radar. We advertize by tearing apart the terrible and fraudulent YEC arguments that we've been exposed to.

And we mention names. Gish, for instance. Gish couldn't have been stupid enough to make a career out of bad arguments without knowing they were bad. He can't have gone all those years without anyone every mentioning to him that his arguments were bad. He had to know.

And he as much as confessed that his case was terrible and fraudulent. He said, and I'm doing this from memory, but I don't think I'm that far off, "There is no fact, real or imagined, that cannot be used to support the case for a young earth." That is the declaration of a huckster, not of an honest man.

I once saw Gish, with a straight face, make two incompatible arguments to the same audience. He told them that organization never increases as a result of natural processes. He went on at length, hammering this point. "If you shake the box of a jigsaw puzzle, will it put itself together? Will it? Will it? Are you ever going to see that? Nature never increases organization." On and on.

And then he claimed---to the same audience---that "hydraulic sorting" during the great flood was responsible for the fossil layers.

He couldn't have been unaware of the conflict. He was treating his followers as morons and/or co-conspirators. He was effectively admitting that his case was contradictory and terrible and that he didn't mind. "That's my story, and I'm sticking with it."

You want to give people the benefit of the doubt, so you generally assume that they are telling the truth. But an argument is "Gish bad" (TM), when it is more generous to assume the speaker is lying.

Is this an ad hominem argument against Gish or YEC? No, the arguments weren't bad because Gish made them. Gish was bad because Gish characteristically made terrible arguments. YEC is bad because none of its proponents make better arguments.

But we're available if any proponent of YEC wants to bring us a good argument. We're here. We're waiting.

[rookiebatman]

And he as much as confessed that his case was terrible and fraudulent. He said, and I'm doing this from memory, but I don't think I'm that far off, "There is no fact, real or imagined, that cannot be used to support the case for a young earth." That is the declaration of a huckster, not of an honest man.

I was curious about this, so I tried to find the actual quotation. The best I could come up with was this, but it's not attributed to Gish:

"Scientific" creationists already "know" the age of the earth and it is not from the evidence. Henry Morris - "the father of scientific creationism" - admits that Genesis takes precedence over the evidence, as he says:

"No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." (Biblical Cosmology, quoted in Science and Creationism)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate- ... earth.html

I think that's probably not the one you meant. If you can track down the Gish quote you were thinking of, I'd like to hear it.

[Danmark]

Isn't it fair to say this thread is just an ad hominem?

Pointing out that some YEC'sts have been caught in lies is appropriate. The more important question is why do they misrepresent the facts.

If our forum gets to the place where we cannot expose lies in an effort to support truth, we have gotten to a sorry place.

[Box Whatbox]

[Replying to post 14 by wiploc]

Suppose a Yeccer states simply:
"The Bible is the Word of God. God is infallible. Anything that contradicts the Bible is just wrong. Where scientists think they have evidence that contradicts the Bible, they are just mistaken."
This 'argument', circular as it is, may be called wrong-headed, blind, or even just plain stupid. But if it is a simple statement of religious belief, it cannot be called devious or evasive. Nor can it be countered by any amount of reason.

The specific points made by Ham et al, as examined in the present thread, are not of this simple blind faith type, although they pretend to be. They are indeed devious and evasive. But in these cases too, just as in the cases of simple blind faith, no amount of reasoned debate will change the minds of those preachers, or their flocks.
So in either case, I personally don't see much point trying to challenge the YEC case. Only cogent arguments that are based on at least some common assumptions have any chance of reaching cogent conclusions.

[Volbrigade]

You guys miss the point -- probably, because in accepting a theory that has no point (microbes morphed into men, for no particular reason. No, wait! Something else did! A monkey became a man, after a ferret became a monkey, after a shrew became a ferret, after lizard became a shrew...whatever) you deny the existence, or even the possibility of there being a point to have.

It would be amusing, but...

Your joyous ad hominem attacks on those that don't buy your silly excuses not to believe in God are a little too juvenile to satisfy the criteria.

Ham is forthright, as am I: we believe the Bible first.

The science MUST fit the Biblical narrative. That's because the Bible is revealed, propositional truth. Science can be made to say virtually anything, because scientists are human, who have biases and presuppositions; which are so obvious, they are not even expressed any more.

What is acutely ironic is that the men upon whose work the entire uniformitarian, m2m framework is built DID express their biases and presuppositions. They didn't like God, and were intent on figuring out an explanation for the world that excluded Him.

What's even more acutely ironic is that the qualifications of these men, in today's terms, would not have been sufficient to make a specualtive presentation to a 3rd-grade science class.

Abraham Werner, who influenced a school of geology into thinking of "millions of years", was a mineralogist who died in 1817. Want to endorse his educational background? James Hutton was an 18th century physician-turned-farmer-turned amateur geologist. His uniformitarian theories on the formation of rocks (completely false) influenced a seminary student named Charles Darwin, who took an interest in the idea that creatures could change from one kind to another over time, in order to dispel the need for a Creator, who he was unhappy with (not unlike the old tune "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head" -- "I said I didn't like the way He got things done..." ).

All of these men, by any criteria, were dilettantes in their chosen areas of interest.

I, personally, have nothing against dilettantism; and I think great truths can be arrived at by brilliant amateurs who are courageous enough to make independent, outside the box assessments of subjects -- and whose conclusions are often rejected by the rigid dogmatism of "peer review".

Truth is truth. Credentials do have value, certainly. Which is why CMI lists those of the PhD scientists who have rejected the m2m dogma in favor a Biblical view.

I think it is hypocritical, however, to belittle people on the basis of their lack of credentials from other people who are diametrically opposed to their views on religious grounds, when the founders of those religious views had no more credentials than the men being belittled. To then claim the belittling is based on science, not religion, just adds lying to the hypocrisy.

Or, it would be hypocritical. But how can anything be hypocritical, to those who do not believe in anything?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 14 by wiploc]

Suppose a Yeccer states simply:
"The Bible is the Word of God. God is infallible. Anything that contradicts the Bible is just wrong. Where scientists think they have evidence that contradicts the Bible, they are just mistaken."
This 'argument', circular as it is, may be called wrong-headed, blind, or even just plain stupid. But if it is a simple statement of religious belief, it cannot be called devious or evasive. Nor can it be countered by any amount of reason.

The specific points made by Ham et al, as examined in the present thread, are not of this simple blind faith type, although they pretend to be. They are indeed devious and evasive. But in these cases too, just as in the cases of simple blind faith, no amount of reasoned debate will change the minds of those preachers, or their flocks.
So in either case, I personally don't see much point trying to challenge the YEC case. Only cogent arguments that are based on at least some common assumptions have any chance of reaching cogent conclusions.

This is well put and right on point. What the Ham and Hovind types do is try to reform science to fit their presuppositions. When they say, or pretend to say they value science, except when it contradicts the Bible [according to their interpretation] it strikes me that they are not using science as a way of knowing the natural world.

They are claiming the Bible is the ultimate authority on all things and that scientific findings and conclusions only sometimes lurch into their truth, when and only when science agrees with the Bible. Their use of science when it suits their purposes seems disingenuous at best.

[rookiebatman]

Gosh, I'm starting to wonder if my dad (who's a Christian/creationist) heard about me debating on here and got himself a membership. You and he are really reading from the same script.

(microbes morphed into men, for no particular reason. No, wait! Something else did! A monkey became a man, after a ferret became a monkey, after a shrew became a ferret, after lizard became a shrew...whatever)

You think you're gonna gain any credibility with this tired old straw man? Your position must be truly weak indeed if you have to fundamentally (and probably knowingly) misrepresent what evolutionists believe like this.

Your joyous ad hominem attacks on those that don't buy your silly excuses not to believe in God are a little too juvenile to satisfy the criteria.

So what do you think about theistic evolutionists? Why do they need to make silly excuses not to believe in God, since they do believe in God?

Ham is forthright, as am I: we believe the Bible first.

The science MUST fit the Biblical narrative. That's because the Bible is revealed, propositional truth.

Which you know how, other than from the Bible itself (which then makes this a circular argument)? If I wrote some random things down on a piece of paper, and then wrote, "everything on this paper is revealed, propositional truth," would you accept that without independent verification?

Truth is truth. Credentials do have value, certainly. Which is why CMI lists those of the PhD scientists who have rejected the m2m dogma in favor a Biblical view.

You know what else is extremely hypocritical? Referring to microbes-to-man as "dogma" while referring to the acceptance of the Bible as revealed, propositional truth that trumps any and all observed science as simply a "view." You can make the case that evolution is dogma if you want, but it's simply laughable (even just based on what you've said in this single post) to pretend that the Biblical view is not completely dogmatic itself.

Or, it would be hypocritical. But how can anything be hypocritical, to those who do not believe in anything?

Ah, the old "atheists can't possibly have any morals or standards" argument. Can someone who's been here longer than me post some links to all the previous iterations of that argument that I'm sure have already been conducted here, or are we gonna have to beat the dead horse again?