Home > Religion, Science > Creationists and fake discussions

Creationists and fake discussions

I don’t get many creationists around here. Even fewer that stick around and strike up a discussion with me. However, there’s one in the comments here.

I point this out for a couple of reasons. The first is that not all creationists are created equal. I had one here a few years ago who debated with me for months, first in comments then over email. He was very wrong, but he clearly was pretty smart and had really thought about the whole of modern science in relation to his religion. No such claims about the current one can be made.

The notable feature of this current discussion is how little discussion there is. I didn’t feel like answering the standard creationist points at the beginning, but I changed my mind after some attempts to turn my claims about not responding back on me and after he built up a list of claims. When I answered them, he dropped the majority of them and came up with new ones. New ones to the discussion, that is, since they were all standard creationist points.

This isn’t an uncommon occurrence. There are a list of global warming denialist claims and ones for any pseudoscience. If anything, it’s a defining characteristic of pseudoscience. There’s a list of basic claims that your average believer latches onto and underneath there’s a core of people generating the supporting lies and half-truths that keep it alive. The believers don’t really understand the arguments generated, but if it gives them a quick talking point, it goes on the Internet and never dies.

About these ads
Categories: Religion, Science
  1. Fate
    May 8, 2008 at 12:08 pm | #1

    This whole discussion needs this linked. But your SPAM filter hates me. The direct link
    to the image didn’t work. I’m going to try and just post the URL.

    http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/far-fetched.html

  2. May 9, 2008 at 11:17 am | #2

    Wow. Jeff, you really are well read and adept with words. That was an excellent defense of evolutionary theory. Mind if I link?

  3. May 9, 2008 at 12:38 pm | #3

    I read the exchange you reference the other morning, but Mark’s post shamed me into coming back to say: Nicely done, Sir. I especially appreciate your focus on the IDiologists shameful attempt to conflate evolution with all other scientific endeavors. Their enemy isn’t Darwin, but rather the whole of science back to Euclid.

  1. May 9, 2008 at 7:20 am | #1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: