cognitive dissonance
I think if god does exist he must be an enormous asshole. Don’t agree? Then explain this to me. And don’t give me that crap about him knowing better than us.
Introducing the Skeptical Lutheran MBA program
I’m finally starting to realize which way the winds in American industry are blowing. Clearly, I’ve taken the wrong approach by getting a doctorate in a technical discipline and restricting myself to strict research and development projects. But no more! I’m launching my own online MBA program. So all you talentless douche bags looking to make money without dumping your douche baginess take heed. Enroll in my program and soon you’ll be taking the effortless path to flashy cars, hot secretaries, and caviar-laced banquets. Here are some of the courses I’m working on:
Marketing 501: Stifling Innovation
In this course you will learn the basics of crapping on innovations posited by your company’s technical personnel. All too often people hesitate to criticize that which they do not understand. This course will teach you how to skim articles in news sources and trade publications, and the abstracts of technical journals so that you can pick up just enough technical jargon to sound erudite while lambasting your companies research personnel. The board and stockholders are guaranteed to believe you know more than your scientists about science!
Marketing 502: Taking credit
Occasionally those pesky scientists not only manage to weasel funding for their projects, they also prove the concept works. In this course you’ll learn how to convince your management and customers that the now successful innovation was yours all along. This can be difficult since science guys like to leave an enormous paper trail documenting their research. However, our proven method of side-stepping, double talk, and bullshitting will give you the tools you need to discredit those scientists in front of equally uneducated audiences.
Accounting 501: Discretionary spending
Technical staff like to parasitize the company coffers. As a manager of a tech company you will be inundated with requests for travel to conferences, or for fancy computers. Don’t be fooled. They will tell you that the conferences are required for conferring with colleagues, a necessary part of the scientific method, but this is actually an excuse for ego-centric Ph.Ds to get together for a weekend in Bermuda and do jello shots off a strippers belly. And the computers they need are way more than you need to read email or run Microsoft Office (the only software any business really needs). Don’t be distracted by their whining about elaborate computational requirements. This course will teach you how to see through these and other common scams.
That’s all I have so far. This is a program that is still a work in progress. Course suggestions are welcome!
Join the science team
Hey, faith-heads, check out this picture. That’s a little girl infected with smallpox. If you have an ounce of compassion in your superstitious mind you’ll have to fight back tears. This used to be a major threat to humans. In the last century alone it killed some 300-500 million people. That makes World War II and World War I look comparatively harmless. But fear not, for I bring you good tidings. No longer do you or your children have to live in fear of this terrible fate.
You see smallpox has been dead lo these 22 years now. Completely eradicated. There are no children anywhere that have to fear this. And it wasn’t because it was prayed out of existence. Faith healers couldn’t even cure one smallpox victim. What happened was years of scientific research in physiology and related fields finally led to the discovery of vaccines. After a little time, and a lot of vaccinations, the virus couldn’t find enough human hosts to survive and became extinct. Neat huh? Science probably saved your ass.
I know, I know: God did it through those brainy science guys, possibly in answer to your many prayers. Funny, though, how he made it look exactly as if he had nothing to do with it. I imagine that over human history many have prayed for an end to smallpox. All that time God was watching lovingly from his comfy perch in the clouds without doing a damn thing when he could have in his omnipotence eradicated it with his supernatural godness. Instead he decided to wait until almost a billion people had fallen to it (and many more to its after effects) and then magically zap someone with the knowledge of vaccinations, but carefully doing so in such a way as to make it appear that they figured it out on there own. You’ll excuse me if I don’t murmur a prayer of thanksgiving.
Don’t believe me? It doesn’t matter, because unlike the hope you peddle, this works regardless of whether or not you believe in it. Vaccinations wont ask if you believe in them before graciously deciding to inoculate you against disease. I suppose you could be stupid about it and just refuse the vaccination. Of course if enough people had refused smallpox vaccinations it wouldn’t have been eradicated. So, I guess if enough people dont believe in it strongly enough they could screw themselves, and by extension much of the rest of the world in the process.
So why don’t you all come in and join the science team? Stop standing on the sidelines, or worse, playing against us, and help us win a few for humanity. Your kids will love you for it.
Here endeth the screed.
Has it been 6012 years already?
Young earth creationists are prone to believe that the world was born on this very day in 4004 B.C. The MIT of YECs appears to have some respect for this astonishingly ridiculous idea:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/world-born-4004-bc
So to all you YECs out there, are you planning any earth birthday celebrations? Maybe burn a little extra oil since the earth is definitely not getting any warmer?
And it seems like just yesterday it was only 6011 years old.
John Lennon
I just realized that today is (or would have been) John Lennon’s 69th birthday. I wouldn’t have noticed, but I’m taking an interest in The Beatles lately. Here’s a little something to commemorate the occasion.
“The Office” sucks
I’m so excited that Pam and Jim got married! I’ve been waiting for that since I accidentally discovered the show while I was waiting for “30 Rock” one night! Alec Baldwin is so hot! Anyway now that Pam and Jim are married I’m totally excited about their baby! Do you think they will bring the kid to work! I’m sure they will because that how real life works! And the ten minutes of dancing down the aisle at the wedding was completely plausible and believable and just way cool! My friends and I do that all the time! It’s perfectly acceptable to do that at someone’s wedding, even if you’re not in the wedding party or related to them, or even a good friend! And Pam and Jim kept making their trademark camera expressions through the whole thing! My friends and I laughed through that whole scene because that’s exactly how we are when we hang out! And that youtube video is so hillarious! I forwarded it to my whole address book! Your welcome, by the way! That show has gotten so awesome since they got people out that boring office! I can’t wait to see what original plot threads the imaginative writers will come up with next! I think more people should hook up in the office! Andy and the receptionist? Angela and Dwight (again)? Creed and Meredith? Oscar and Kevin?!?! This show is so awesome and clever and funny! Yeah NBC!
Finally getting around to fixing this…
I’m going to try to broaden my musical tastes into the sixties and seventies. I’ve never been a fan of The Beatles, but then I never really gave them a chance. I’ve tried to stay clear of anything from the Baby Boomer epoch, but it looks like this “rock and roll” thing is here to stay.
I’m soliciting suggestions. I have a copy of “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”. (I’m listening to “Lucy in the sky with diamonds” as I type this.) Anyhoo, I haven’t really the patience to sift through the entire Beatles catalog. If you feel strongly about this please email me or comment here with suggestions for which Beatles album I should sample next.
State-sanctioned murder
Should the death penalty be abolished? I used to think no, but I’m gradually changing my mind. It’s not that I think there aren’t crimes for which death is not an appropriate punishment. It’s that in my experience with large bureaucracies, the government in particular, I’ve come to realize how often mistakes are made. I don’t trust the government to correctly place guilt every time. I suspect the success rate is far less than any reasonable person would call acceptable. Innocent people are going to be murdered by the state. This may have happened recently in Texas. Read this story and decide for yourself. If you have ADD or just don’t like to read, watch video here.
Logical Contradictions: Creation Science
In this week’s installment of calling the kettle black, Answers in Genesis’ resident pot makes up examples of non-creationists slinging straw man arguments at him. Apparently Lisle comes up with topics for his weekly articles by watching fellow science ignoramuses Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, and Kent Hovind make error after error. With material like that to draw from, it’s surprising he doesn’t burp out more than one a week. Here’s what he says this week:
t’s a fallacy that just shouldn’t happen—but it does all the time. The straw-man fallacy is when a person misrepresents his opponent’s position and then proceeds to refute that misrepresentation (i.e., the “straw man”) rather than what his opponent actually claims.1 Here’s an example:
“Creationists do not believe that animals change. But clearly, animals do change. So, creationists are mistaken.”
Since creationists do indeed believe that animals change (just not from one basic created kind to another), the argument is a straw-man fallacy. The argument does not refute what creationists actually claim.
This is itself a straw-man argument. Lisle makes up a claim that someone somewhere might make, being sure that it is an easy one for him to refute. The correct claim is
“Answers in Genesis claims that every species, living and extinct, descended from one of a set of animals rapidly over a period of about 400 years following the flood. Species sharing a common ancestor they call a “kind”. However they have no rigorous taxonomical definition for what constitutes a kind. Also the mutation rate necessary to sustain the rapid change required over such a short period would have resulted in the extinction of every “kind”. Oh, and this is all made up and has absolutely no evidence to support it. So, creationists are mistaken, and Jason Lisle is a butthead.”
This accurately characterizes AiGs fantasy biology (go ahead and read their tracts and visit their museum if you don’t believe me) and real biologists will argue as I have against it. No straw man here.
Such a misrepresentation could be unintentional; it could be that a particular evolutionist simply misunderstands what a creationist is teaching. Or the fallacy could be quite deliberate. That, of course, is a dishonest approach, yet it is quite common in origins debates.
Yes it is. You and your friends should stop doing it, Jason.
Even in cases where the misrepresentation is unintentional, there is still a degree of liability. After all, the arguer should have done sufficient research and studied what it is the opponent actually teaches. We would certainly be willing to overlook minor misunderstandings, particularly where a position is complex or nuanced (though the critic should still be corrected on the issue). However, there are a number of cases where the creationist position is so clear that misrepresentations by evolutionists are simply inexcusable. The following are a few examples.
Like this:
“If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?”
“The first male and female of each species had to evolve at the same time, which is improbable.” (Watch someone actually make this argument.)
“Richard Dawkins thinks aliens created life on earth.” (Renowned biologist Ben Stein made this claim in “Expelled”.)
“Evolutionists believe everything happened by chance.”
All of these demonstrate unrestrained ignorance of evolution and, as Lisle says, are simply inexcusable. That’s just what I can think of off the top of my head. I’m sure more will come to me later, particularly if I keep paying attention to creationists.
If an evolutionist were to claim, “Creationists don’t believe in science,” this would be a straw-man fallacy.2 Creationists do believe in science. There are several full-time Ph.D. scientists on the Answers in Genesis staff. I’ve argued on this website, as in my book (The Ultimate Proof of Creation) that biblical creation is what makes science possible.
Yeah, your Ph.D. is in solar astronomy. Your book is exemplary of what happens when an astronomer pontificates on that for which he is not trained. Stop using your Ph.D. to add credibility to your crappy book.
Someone may claim, “Creationists believe in the fixity of species.” However, this is certainly not the mainstream biblical creationist position. There may be a few individuals that hold to such a concept, but it is not the position advocated by most creationists. Thus, the generalization “creationists believe . . .” is false.
No, you believe in the fixity of “kinds”, whatever that is.
Likewise, the claim, “Creationists say there are no good mutations” is not representative of what biblical creationists teach. Generally, we say that mutations do not add brand-new, creative information to the genome and are thus in the “wrong direction” to make evolution happen. But we do believe that mutations can result in traits that increase survival value under certain conditions.
Here’s a drinking game: Invite your AiG-spewing friends over some Saturday night. Every time they mention genetic information drink once. You’ll be plastered in no time. After you can’t stand up anymore ask them to rigorously define what they mean by information using mathematics. By that time you might think it makes sense.
“Answers in Genesis is pushing to get creation to be taught in public schools alongside evolution.”
This is definitely false. Answers in Genesis as a ministry is not about political or legal change. Rather, we are about defending the Bible from the very first verse and teaching other Christians to do the same. Although this may eventually result in a changed political and legal situation, we do not (as a ministry) attempt to change laws or get involved in politics.
Right.
“The Bible teaches that the earth has literal pillars and corners and cannot be moved. It is clearly wrong.”
This is a misrepresentation of Scripture and therefore constitutes a straw-man fallacy. The Bible uses figures of speech (just as we do when we say, “Tim is a pillar of the community”) and poetic language at times. Referring to the cardinal directions as “corners”3 or the stability of the earth as not able to “be moved”4 is not an error. It is entirely inappropriate for a critic to take the poetic sections of the Bible as literal—or the literal historical sections as poetic. Many objections against Scripture turn out to be straw-man fallacies.
But when the Bible says the earth hangs on nothing that’s literal. How do theologians decide what is literal and what is not? Easy. If it’s true it’s literal, if not it’s metaphorical.
The claims that creationists believe in a flat earth, that we deny laws of nature, or that we take every verse of the Bible in a wooden literal sense are all baseless assertions. Nonetheless, claiming that creationists believe in such things makes the creation position easier to discredit—but it is not a rationally cogent way to debate. Granted, not all evolutionists do this; some do accurately represent their opponents. But ignorance of biblical creation among those who oppose it is a serious problem: one that Christian apologists must be prepared to face.
Who is adding belief in a flat earth to your already long list of superstitious assertions? No one that I know of. You’ve stupided up your claims well enough by yourself.
We must gently encourage our opponents to find out what it is that creationists actually teach. This is not a difficult task. Our positions on the most-asked questions are well-summarized in the New Answers Book series and to a great extent on this very website.
I studied creationism. I was a creationist for three decades. I challenge creationists who blindly adhere to this nonsense to study “creation science” and see just how transparent it is.
Creationists must also stay educated on both sides of the issue so that we do not commit the very same fallacy.5 Watch for misrepresentations of creation or other Christian teachings and be ready to point out that such straw-man arguments are fallacious; yet always do so with gentleness and respect.
His first sentence here may be the smartest thing he has ever said. You creationists should pick up a book about evolution and actually learn something about the theory. Maybe then you’ll stop making asses of yourselves. There are plenty of books out there intended for audiences with little or no scientific training. I recommend Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True” and Richard Dawkins “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution”. Of course, you wont do that. Creationists have no interest in finding truth. They just desperately want to defend their world view.
Ken Ham’s epic ad hominem
Recall my earlier rant about Dr. Jason Lisle’s rant on the logical fallacy of ad hominems? I figured that if I just waited long enough someone over at AiG would break his rule. Turns out, I didn’t have to wait very long. Ken Ham himself thinks you should disregard claims that come from atheists because they are atheists. If you agree with Dr. Jason Lisle, and find Mr. Ken Ham’s logic fallacious, you may be interested in seeing video of the atheist making her claims here.
I’ve been waiting to use this (everyone else on the internet has):
Interesting footnote: Ken Ham doesn’t link to the blog of the atheist he attacks, nor does he provide any reference at all which would allow his readers to verify his claims or read her supposedly erroneous material. Go to her blog, though, and you’ll find that she is not nearly so careless with her citations.
