To be honest, Dan. I’ve only ever heard that from yourself.

<<It's sometimes thought (not necessarily true) that a more interesting article will provoke a high number of comments.>>

But I’m glad you added the qualifier there in brackets, because it’s certainly not the case with Don Batten’s article, as demonstrated by the line-by-line rebuttal I began a week or two ago. The number of comments that an article generates is a pretty unreliable standard by which to measure how interesting and thought provoking it is, because there are other possibilities. Why, the article could be offensively absurd.

For example, I just read through Batten’s article again to count the different fallacies he commits in it, and here’s a list of them all:

1. the Straw Man fallacy;
2. Special Pleading;
3. Begging the Question;
4. the Argument from Personal Incredulity;
5. the Argument from Ignorance, and;
6. the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Six fallacies in only 2300 words! Some were committed on multiple occasions.

That’s terrible.

<<There has been an unusually high number of responses here, but not many have really interacted much with the article itself.>>

Batten may find that more people respond to what he writes if he actually engages with what others think, instead of attacking straw men.

<<So I'm interested in what you have under point six, where you accuse Don Batten of making stuff up. Could you elaborate on this. What has he just made up?>>

I wasn’t specifically talking about Batten there, but he is a Christian and Christians make stuff up all the time where their God is concerned. Either that, or they happily adopt stuff that had already been made up by others to avoid coming to more rational conclusions. Stuff they could not possibly know. Here are some examples:

- God works in mysterious ways.
- Noting bad can come from God.
- God is love.
- God is the prime-mover/alpha-and-omega/[insert whatever nonsense you like here to commit the Special Pleading or Begging the Question fallacies].

I could go on forever, but I think you catch my drift.

Of course, that should be "caveat", not "qualifier".

But since I'm wasting a post, here's a video of a monkey riding a bike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kVW7G_-wz0

AJ Philips, could we add "only God can account for the laws of logic" to your list?

And here's an orangutan seeing a magic trick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIxYCDbRGJc

AJ,
I was taking my idea of what defines a good OLO article from the OLO Contributors page, in which Graham Young writes:

"Our contributors have a combination of one or more of the following characteristics:
- Expertise in their field
- Influence in their field
- Writing skills
- Interesting, even iconoclastic, ideas
- The ability to provoke debate
The ideal contributor will have the lot, but writing skills on their own could well get you a gig."

I would say that Don Batten has passed on most if not all of these points. But the idea that an article that provokes much discussion is a healthy article is hardly my idea alone.

-

AJ (19 May) - "Sceptics are content with, “I don’t know”, as an indefinite answer. Which is a lot more honest than just making stuff up. That last one there was just one of many reasons why Don Batten’s article was nonsense,"

You accuse Don Batten of making stuff up. Could you elaborate on this. What has he just made up?

AJ (20 May) "I wasn’t specifically talking about Batten there, but he is a Christian and Christians make stuff up all the time."

Thanks for admitting to an error. But your overt prejudice is not an endearing quality.

Dan,

I was under the impression that you thought my sixth point was directly aimed at Batten’s article.

<<Thanks for admitting to an error.>>

Don Batten’s article does make a lot of stuff up, if you really want to do down that route. I mentioned some of it in my line-by-line rebuttal of his article. It appears you keep forgetting that I posted that. What, with your request that I give an example of where Batten has ‘made stuff up’, and now your assumption that I have admitted to an error.

What do you think it is that one needs to do when attacking straw men?

That’s right: make stuff up (and then attack that instead).

So no, I did not admit to an error, and nor did I engage in any "overt prejudice".

AJ,
Yes, on one hand you were claiming Don Batten 'made stuff up'. On the other hand you say that you weren't referring to Batten when you said Christians make stuff up.

Either way, what I was hoping was that you could point out in Batten's article where (or if) you think he made stuff up.

---

Rhian,
The Anglican liturgy does refer to God's 'creation'.

"Gracious God, our heavenly Father,
we humbly thank you
for all your gifts so freely given:
for life and health and safety,
for work and rest and friendship,
and for the wonder of creation."

and from The Apostles’ Creed

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth."

So the liturgy is concerned with God's creation. And you say you are concerned that liturgy is biblically based. The liturgy enacts and expresses church beliefs.

I can see how this all fits with Christ's resurrection. I find it difficult to see how it fits with evolution. Is there any overlap between biblical teaching and evolutionary?