rhetoric

I just checked the most popular tables and saw how VJT’s UD James Tour article got 30,000 or so hits within a few days. Why? Reddit and Facebook etc atheists are suddenly screaming (and don’t seem to know that Dr Tour DID meet with someone for private discussion and . . . by implication, has not found a satisfactory answer) — per Groovamos at 9, this was a mis-impression on my part)  but, again, why? Then Google popped up: VJT has republished the article at Science News on Feb. 18. [–> He was credited as author, it seems there has been an auto-publishing.] We are getting the back-wash of that spreading publicity. All to the good. Let those who would Read More ›

Let me cross-post and adapt, in further following up on the Nye-Ham debate, through exploring and replying to the underlying problem of scientism . . . the ideologisation of science: _____________ >> The following video critique of Scientism (science turned into ideology or quasi-religion and means of gaining power) based on C S Lewis’s thought, is worth a pause to watch and ponder: [youtube FPeyJvXU68k] Food for thought, especially as we further reflect on the Nye-Ham debate and its sobering implications. END Posted by GEM of The Kairos Initiative at 6:30 am >> ______________ Let us think carefully, lest we make the error of the sorcerer’s apprentice and let loose forces we cannot control. END

I have felt it useful to blog on the Nye-Ham debate at my personal blog, here. I trust the thoughts there will be helpful for onward discussion. My conclusion, in light of say the life and career of this notorious Creationist  ignoramus, and blundering incompetent at scientific fields . . . NOT: . . . is: That [the focal] issue is first to resolve a false and toxic accusation [promoted by Nye], then to reasonably address the actual weight of the evidence in front of us on its merits, without question-begging a prioris. For those who missed the debate here it is courtesy ABN and YouTube: [youtube psk27UgyVK8] Bottomline, one way or another, we are at a kairos — a Read More ›

Good day, my name is JoeG and I would like to get something out in the open and hopefully have it become fully understood by everyone. For decades I have been debating against evolutionism and for decades I have been told that my position is “anti-evolution.” I found that strange because my position allows for a change in allele frequency over time, i.e. evolution. It also allows for natural selection, ie evolution. Speciation is OK too, i.e. evolution. Offspring are different from their parents meaning my position also allows for descent with modification, i.e. evolution. The whole point of my opponents seems to be a strawman: they want to be able to “refute” my position by showing that allele frequencies Read More ›

As has been noted, sometimes people come to UD looking for answers to questions about what they have been taught regarding “Evolution”; typically in the context of indoctrination under the Lewontinian ideological a priori materialism that he outlined thusly in his infamous 1997 NYRB article: [T]he problem is to get [the general public] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations [–> note the implicit bias, polarising rhetoric and refusal to address the real alternative posed by design theory, — which was already topical in those days some months after Behe’s first book on Irreducible complexity. Namely, assessing natural (= chance and/or necessity) vs ART-ificial alternative causes on empirically tested reliable signs] of the world, the demons that exist only in their Read More ›

I am thinking it is time we began a collection of Darwinist fever swamp fallacies found in the wild. (Make sure to get your Malaria shot before going there . . . ) After the now standard “your’e a quote miner” false accusation and the “it’s a Gish galloper” smear of a man not present to defend himself and associated false accusation of wholesale lying, we have been seeing a few choice ones recently. Let’s begin a collection: The Darwinist 1984-style Orwellian doubletalk definition slip-slide trojan horse. I think that about captures it: it’s not what it seems like, and it’s what’s inside the wrapper that counts. often used with false accusations like you’re quote mining or you’re on a Read More ›

On Christmas Day, WJM put the following hypothetical conversation in a comment. Since he has not headlined it himself, as promised yesterday, I now do so: Typical debate with an anti-ID advocate: ID advocate: There are certain things that exist that are best explained by intelligent design. Anti-ID advocate: Whoa! Hold up there, fella. “Explained”, in science, means “caused by”. Intelligent design doesn’t by itself “cause” anything. ID advocate: What I meant is that teleology is required to generate certain things, like a functioning battleship. It can’t come about by chance. Anti-ID advocate: What do you mean “by chance”? “By” means to cause. Are you claiming that chance causes things to happen? ID advocate: Of course not. Chance, design and Read More ›

Yesterday, UD News  headlined a case of radical secularist censorship in Los Angeles being cheered on by Jerry Coyne et al. The case concerns the removal of the following sign (shown under fair use) that was formerly present at a Museum of Natural History in that city: Notice, what Coyne says in exultation over the removal of the sign: If I get any other information I’ll convey it, but for now I’m pleased that God is out of the Museum and no longer gets credit for “creatures.”  It’s a victory for secularism, for sure. Something is blatantly, deeply wrong. Wrong with the push to censor. Wrong with the willingness of the museum’s leadership to be intimidated by Darwinist thuggery — Read More ›

It seems that one of the pivotal issues in reasoned thinking about design-related questions — and in general —  is the question of self-evident first, certain truths that can serve as a plumb-line for testing other truth claims, and indeed for rationality. (Where, the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle are foremost among such first principles. And where also, some ID objectors profess to be “frightened” that some of us dare to hold that there are moral truths that are self evident.) Where also of course, self-evident does not merely mean perceived as obvious to oneself, which could indeed be a manifestation of a delusion. Nay, a self evident truth [SET] is best summarised as one known to be Read More ›

  It seems necessary — in the teeth of too much obfuscatory rhetoric spread out like a squid escaping behind a cloud of ink — to lay out some basics of reasoning in general and about morality in particular for record, yet again. This time, by clipping, slightly adapting and highlighting an in-thread comment here: ________________________ >> Try (as a first example and slice of the cake with all the key ingredients): 3 + 2 = 5 ||| + || = ||||| This is self evident, as one who understands what it asserts (in light of conscious experience of the world) will see it to be true and that it must be true on pain of immediate, patent absurdity. Similarly, Read More ›

My neo-Darwinian friend, Francis Smallwood, has now written a response to my previous instalment in our dialogue. If you want to read it, go here. Below is a small excerpt of the response by Francis. You can read his full response by going to his blog. Follow the link at the bottom of the page. I think that his latest reply is considerably better than his previous writings. Over the past year or so his critique of ID has become sharper and more substantive, and I think he makes some very good points. I still happen to think he is largely mistaken though. It is well worth engaging with this one, so please do discuss some of his points either Read More ›

A few days ago, UD News posted a comment on a scare mongering story in a British popular science magazine, on how “Creationists” in Texas were allegedly tainting textbooks through the buying power of that state. By comments 3 and 4 we read: 3 wd400October 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm First, how do they know? I dunno, why don’t we ask… News at uncommon descent 4 Alan FoxOctober 7, 2013 at 2:09 pm *Applauds* Hilarious, wd400! This seems to be a part of a recent wave of comments that target the UD News desk. It pivots on the ASSUMPTION that “Creationists” are tainting textbooks in Texas, and therefore the purchasing power of Texas spreads that taint far and wide. But Read More ›

It seems that, in the interests of more responsible and responsive, on-issue commentary here at UD and elsewhere in the context of debates over design theory (cf. concerns here and here), participants in discussions in and around UD need to clarify some matters, especially the difference between fair comment dissent and defamation and that between acting to stop disruptive and enabling behaviour and censorship. All this, in the context of free and democratic societies that duly balance rights, freedoms and responsibilities — the difference between liberty and licence. First, defamation is not fair-comment free speech. Madeleine Flanagan of M and M blog in New Zealand writes, helpfully (and as already cited in correction but it seems ignored): >> . . Read More ›

Sometimes, it is necessary to shine a spotlight on behaviour that is beyond the pale of reasonable civil discourse. Especially if, after repeated attempts to call for correction, we see instead the blog owner — here, EL of TSZ — and others insistently pretending that such falls within the circle of reasonable freedom of expression. Here, then, are relevant excerpts from davehooke in his post: Sure, ID proponents are passionate about the tenets of their faith . . . As Kierkegaard noted, there is always an unbridgeable emptiness for the theist, the “leap of faith.” So no matter how much reason one applies to religion, religious belief is at heart irrational. Those who attempt to trowel reason over the gap Read More ›