... or based on the best tactics. I can't count how many times I've pointed a logical fallacy in a creationist's argument here. When I'm in these discussions, I generally give the creationist the benefit of the doubt that they weren't putting forward an argument they knew to be logically invalid, but when I step back and think about the big picture, I have to believe that at least some of them knew what they were doing.
I agree with this. Some are simply being dishonest. I think others respond in a moment of heat, and simply haven't really thought about what they are saying. But I do agree with this.
... especially with ID, since its entire premise is really a logical fallacy, yet I've seen it argued by a fair number people who then show themselves to be quite intelligent when it comes to other matters.
I think that's part of the problem: even if we assume that the person sincerely believes in the conclusion he's arguing, when the argument has logical holes you could drive a truck through, it can be very difficult to believe that he's arguing in good faith.
It doesn't stop the progression of humanity. Just because some people don't accept an idea, that doesn't mean that the progression of humanity will all of a sudden stop.
I again completely agree. Looking specifically on the logical holes that some of these (or most) arguments have, I can see how they would be argued in good faith, at least by some.
I use to be a supporter of the Jesus myth. I was very passionate about it (which I think is a problem, as passion can fog things), and I was able to rationalize much of the evidence against my position. Looking at it now, I can see how my logic had huge holes in it, but at the time, I was invested in the idea. And that investment really does but a set of blinders on a person.
And I think this may be true for a number of these individuals. They are invested in the idea, and have blinders on.
Wait... what?
We have a theory that explains evolution: it's called the theory of evolution.
Wow, I really didn't say that in the best manner. Starting off, I fully support the idea of evolution. I have no problems with the theory of evolution.
What I was meaning though is that we don't know everything about evolution (or the evolutionary history). We continue to discover more and more on the subject, that continues to support the theory of evolution. At the same time though, I am open to the idea that we may discover something that may help with our understanding of evolution or add to our understanding.
And questioning evolution (as well as other ideas), may help in finding this, or help other people just understand the idea. I know when I started learning about evolution, it was because I questioned it. I still question it because honestly, I still have a lot of learning to do. However, this questioning went from an immature stance, to a more mature questioning, and I think that should be supported.
I just don't like the idea where people say you can't or shouldn't question an idea. To me, that is simply getting into a problematic mindset.
But this gets into another form of dishonesty that often comes out in creationist arguments: misrepresenting the level of one's knowledge.
Sure, there are people who know nothing about, say, radiometric dating, but these people are unqualified to declare radiometric data to be wrong. When they go ahead and do this anyhow, their argument has an implicit dishonesty: by putting the argument forward, they're effectively saying that they know enough about the subject to speak authoritatively on it, even though they don't really know anything about it at all.
Now... I know some of this comes about honestly. I know that some people have just been misled by bad information or outright lies about the science behind evolution, and are merely repeating what they heard believing it to be true. However, when I do my best to carefully explain to a person the problems with their assumption and why an alternate way of looking at things is correct and they don't even challenge it but simply ignore what I've said and keep making the same arguments, I have a very hard time believing that they're interested in a good-faith discussion.
I agree again. And I think some people simply are not willing to be helped. They have too much invested in an idea, and they will inevitably die with those ideas.
With creationism, we are challenging more than just the idea of creationism. For many creationists, they see us challenging the Bible, their religion, and God himself. And that can cause some serious problems. If they accept that creationism is wrong, then other of their ideas begin falling. So they have a lot of investment in keeping their ideas intact. And that does make it easy to simply ignore the evidence. Especially if it is given in a hostile manner.
But I think if it is explained nicely, and simply, it has a higher chance to get through, especially after they have had some time to think about it.
I think that is one of the very nice things about this forum. There are a lot of nice individuals here who are willing to explain things simply. Sometimes they get overly frustrated, and that is understandable. I get the same way. But then there are some here who also are just really not help because they usually just belittle those who believe differently (and I suspect that may be because they don't fully understand evolution either).
But it's not that they're just arguing for something that's wrong. It's that they often argue for something that's wrong, using tactics that should be recognized as improper, misrepresenting their own level of knowledge, without any willingness to be open to the other side's view.
Again, while I'm not big on ridiculing other people so I tend not to do it, it's happened way more times than I care to remember when I've been 80-90% sure that the creationist I'm debating knows that he's being dishonest, but because of that 10-20% doubt, I don't call him on it but instead let the other readers draw their own conclusions.
I completely understand. It happens with me as well, and I'm trying to now work that out instead of ridiculing others. But it is easy to call them out, or get very annoyed with someone that is being dishonest.
And this is something I have to work on as well, but I think even then, ridiculing them, which they very much may deserve, does an injustice to the ideas that we are trying to put forward. Because even though that person may not listen, there are many people who may be lurking, and just reading the information, or there may be people who stumble upon it in a Google search or the like. And for those people, I think they are more receptive to those who seem to show more respect.
I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying though.
