Continued...

Nothing I say will stop him responding, believe me. But to his credit, there are certain arguments he no longer uses as he now knows they are patently false.

<<Do unto others...>>

Absolutely.

That’s why I don’t complain when he offends me.

Relda,

I apologise for overlooking that compliment you paid me, and thanks for that.

I don’t deny that I have gone over-the-top from time-to-time, and I make (probably inadequate) efforts to correct that. But at the same time, I don’t take Creationists ‘lying down’. Creationism is a very destructive force in society. Just take a look at how many people (who have never even had anything to do with religion) misunderstand evolution because of the noisy extremist minority out there.

As Grim said, I’m sure there are more readers than there are contributors to OLO, and that’s why it’s important to correct falsehoods. As I’ve said before, it would be a real tragedy if someone were to read Dan’s posts and think he actually had a point.

Davidf,

I find it difficult to believe that you don’t detect an undertone in (some of) Dan’s posts.

I agree with your point about free speech, but I consider directness (or “bad manners”) as a much smaller ‘crime’ than the ‘crimes’ that I mentioned.

There are what I call the three D’s of Creationism...

They’re either: Dumb, Dishonest, or Delusional (or a combination thereof).

Now we know from Dan’s writing style that he’s certainly not dumb, and regardless of the disgraceful view of myself that you hold, I don’t like to call people are “delusional”. That would just be cruel.

<<Dishonest people consciously try to deceive.>>

I‘ve pointed out many instances where Dan has tried to deceive. If one isn’t consciously trying to deceive, then they’re still dishonest, just with themselves.

I agree with your JW analogy. I’m not trying to convince Dan of anything. I think he’s beyond the point of no return. I refer back to my last sentence to Relda.

I think you guys would hate some of the YouTube video debates. Now they’re rough!

Dear AJ,

If you were arguing one on one with Dan I would have absolutely no criticism of the way you argue. You are not going to change him, and he is not going to change you. However, in arguing on online opinion you don't know how many be lurking and just listening. I know one man who Graham Young has prohibited from posting. However, he keeps listening. Think of who may be listening and how they may react to your remarks. Well thought out polite arguments may reach them even if they don't reach Dan.

AJ Philips,
>> I was flattered with the effort he went to in responding to me. I saw what I personally believed to be flaws in his reasoning, but I never brought them up.<<
I am flattered reciprocally by your kind words, however in my exposition I did not offer any reasoning, since - as I said explicitly - there was no rational way to decide in favour of the one or the other alternative presupposition in Step 1. What I offered were personal motivations for accepting my Steps 2 and 3 (where I did not bother to spell out any alternatives) AFTER having accepted my alternative in Step 1, which I knew, and you confirmed it, would be different from your choice.

Thanks Grim, Relda, and David for your comments. Much appreciated.

I’ve often wondered why discussing origins can often include such heat and emotion. I believe it is because our view of origins reaches deep into the core of our psychology, so deeply into our assumed world view that we have trouble recognising what is ticking down there.

With regard to origins, there is either a transcendent mind or personality behind the universe and responsible for establishing its order, or there is not. Theists and non-theists (for lack of a better term), because of different world views, may look at the same evidence very differently. Like two people looking at the same house from an opposite perspective, what they perceive might be quite distinct. Discussing it may lead to misunderstanding, mistrust, and even anger and accusations, as the evidence was ‘clearly obvious to anyone who cared to look’.

David,
You said, “Some religious believers apparently feel they have an essential truth that is impervious to logic or facts.” I think such a description is evidenced across the board within humanity and not limited to those of religious leaning.

AJ,
I object to the accusation of arrogance. I try to put my comments clearly and why not confidently? I would expect the same from others.

I don’t know why anyone would describe creationist views with the word ‘destructive’. The weapons creationists use are words and arguments. Encouraging open, considered, and respectful discussion can only be constructive and move things forward. I thought that was the spirit of this website.

Is the modern creationist case persuasive? While you claim the debate was settled ‘long ago’ (when exactly?), many are persuaded by the evidence, including some of the most esteemed scientific minds (von Braun, Chain, etc.) who gave themselves to design argument most vociferously. The origins debate is likely to continue; it’s not showing signs of dissipating.

Regarding paradigms, these aren’t something I made up, or a subversive creationist plot. The importance of the scientific ‘paradigm’ is widely accepted in the philosophy of science since the writings of Thomas Kuhn.

Dear Dan,

I agree that imperviousness to logic or facts is not restricted to religious believers. However, one of the techniques that Creationists and other religious and non-religious believers use in argument is that science is just another form of belief. It isn't.

George,

Sorry, I should have said that I “had a problem with your premise”. I thought it was flawed because presupposition #2 was too specific. Had it simply been: “There must be Something not reducible to the physical universe”, then that would've been better.

The more assumptions that are added, the further down the line it needs to be placed from the presupposition.

Dan,

<<...because of different world views, may look at the same evidence very differently.>>

This is the ‘Paradigm’ argument without the word “paradigm”... and I’ve already discredited it. The scientific method helps to ensure objectivity by requiring that repeated attempts are made to disprove observations. But as I showed earlier, Creationists unashamedly reject conflicting data.

The 'House' analogy doesn’t work either because both views in that analogy are equally valid.

<<I don’t know why anyone would describe creationist views with the word ‘destructive’.>>

Because, it breeds ignorance.

Think about the children of Creationists who stubbornly refuse to listen to science teachers on certain topics because of their parents’ brainwashing. Then there’s the abusive (and sometimes threatening) letters biology teachers receive on the odd occasion (more so in the US) from Creationist parents.

<<Encouraging open, considered, and respectful discussion can only be constructive and move things forward.>>

Which brings me to the amount of time biologists have to waste countering the spread of misinformation from Creationists. Think of how difficult it would be for an historian if they had to spend time countering the arguments of fundamentalists who claimed that certain civilisations never existed.

So on the contrary, Creationism is actually counterproductive and holding things back.

But worst of all, think about how dangerous Stalin and Hitler (assuming the claims are true about Hitler’s belief in eugenics coming from his alleged acceptance of evolution) were because of their misunderstanding of evolution; a similar misunderstanding that Creationists perpetuate.

Had they understood evolution, they would have realised that artificially narrowing the gene pool is detrimental to mankind. Not to mention the murderous outcomes that resulted (partly) from the misunderstanding.

Yes, Creationist propaganda has the potential to be very dangerous.

Continued...