I started this thread becasue I saw a challenge on Kent Hovinds website (drdino.com). The challenge was so simple that I believed that there were plenty of individuals on this site who would be able to overcome it. After being involved in this thread, I have come to realise that the challenge is not there to actually be fought. The challenge is there to exist by itself. The challenge is designed to make it appear that noone can fight it. No replies or communications accepting the challenge will ever be acknowledged. Hovind can just sit back and keep repeating that he has a challenge on his website that has gone unanswered for years. Then he will smugly say something like 'what does that tell you'. To his target audience, this will tell them that he has something so powerful to say that noone can stand against it. To others it will say that he has not allowed anyone to challenge it. Unfortunately, the two groups are not equal in size. Hovinds target audience need to believe what he says. They have a huge vested interest in remaining ignorant. They lose their afterlife if they are wrong. They have wasted the life they have if they are wrong. This is one of the creationist sides most effective forms of arguement. This tactic has been used many times even in this one thread.
There is a tone af dishonesty to many of the replies. A good example of this dishonesty is falsly represnting your position. The ID group are the best example. They attempt to make it seem as if they are part of the scientific side. Dawn Bertot seems to be a textbook example. The summation carries a perfect example of the dishonesty plainly and clearly. Other examples can be found but this one happens to be handy.
In the first few sentences of the summation he states that he is on a particular side -
In keeping with a part of the theme of this thread, it has been intimated that not only Kent Hovind, but most creationist use unethical tactics during debates.
There is no need to believe this is true, nor is there any need to assume the polemist on the creation side is anything but honest and that thier intentions are honorable
In this vain, I thought it would be appropriate in summation to rehearse some of the tactics, we, I, believe, secular fundamental Humanist use in these same debates.
Notice that he use the terms their and they when discussing the creationist side. He describes himself as a secular, fundamental humanist. Creating an us and them side, with himself on the science side. By doing this he is attempting to create the illusion that he is argueing from the science position. Suggesting that he is on our side.
However, his true colours come out throughout the remainder of the post. For all of the rest of the post, he changes to refer to the science side as they and them. Showing that he does not see himself as on this side at all. At one stage he even refers to the scientific method as 'their scientific method'
Another form of dishonesty is suggesting you are something when you are obviously not. Many people on this forum will openly state that something is not in their field and will step aside for another individual better qualified to deal with a question to do so. Many creationists argue as if they are experts in many fields of science as well as logic, theology and philosophy. A creationist does not have to take an opponents word for it when they state something, they should research it a bit themselves. But if an individual has tertiary training in a particular field, especially if they have a masters or even a doctorate in that field, then they should listen very carefully when they are informed of defenitions of basic words. An example of where this has fallen down can be found in Dawn bertots summation as well as in many other threads.
A couple of examples are the words science and evidence. Science they say has to be limited to thier strict definition,or its not science. This is of course nonsense,. simply because any investigation into the natural world by scientist on either side is of course science
When applying the word evidence to creationist they insist that there must be direct evidence to establish the position as valid, which is actually no problem if the word is used acccurately and applied accross the board, its is not
Science and evidence have definitions. All words have definitions. The standard definition of words like science, evidence, theory, supernatural, logic etc apply to everyone. Making up your own incorrect definition to a word does not improve your arguement, it just makes it confusing.
Just taking Dawns summation as a source of an example, there is obvious misrepresentation or total incorrect usage of the following words and phrases : evidence, science, secular fundamental humanist, apologetics, scientific method, natural causes (I personaly have written an extensive reply to Dawn illustrating how to correctly use the term). This sort of thing is relatively common amongst creationist debaters.
Another tactic often used is to misinterpret or misrepresent facts in order to confuse the argument. For example, using Dawn again because he is such a good source of poor arguements.
When refering to the TOE, however, they insist thier is direct evidence, even if, like creationism,no one actually wittnessed that event. They change the nature of the word evidence to suit thier purposes and demand and insist that we provide what they are not required to establish the position as valid
There are two examples of common, dishonest arguement here. There is misrepresentation of the ToE. This sentence suggests that evolution is not currently occuring. Even Dawn must know that this is not true. But this is an example used by many creationists, not just Dawn Bertot. I am only using this as an example as it is handy. This can only be deliberate dishonesty in order to further his own cause. He also suggests that followers of the ToE are changing the word evidence to further their cause when this is also not true.
One of the most common forms of argument I have seen used by creationists is repetition. Repeating a position over and over again. Often using CAPITALS to hammer their point home. Evidence is rarely in ever supplied. The sources supplied are often corrupt or used in a misleading fashion. Look up any thread involving IamJoseph or Dawn Bertot for extensive examples of this form of intellectual dishonesty. Repeating the same wrong thing over and over again does not do anything to support your position.
These forms of arguements are the most difficult to debate against. They do not create a position that can be fought. the creationist side uses the very existence of their arguement as a position. Just because they have said something, their position is valid. This is the same form of arguemnt Hovind uses with his challenge. Create a position and refuse to engage in reasonable debate. It is a position that is impossible to defeat. Rational people can see the obvious flaw in the position but the target audience do not. They have a vested interest in sowing confusion and misdirection.
This makes it a very hard sell for the non creationist side. We gain nothing but knowledge by being right or wrong. Our chances of an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell do not change. In our eyes, they often both remain a steady 0%. Our audience (and that is everybody) gains nothing from being lied to or intentionally confused. But some individuals need to remain confused or ignorant. They lose significantly if they ever change sides. They want to find arguements that help them remain confused. The people on this forum who use these tactics are being enabled when others try to debate with them. It stregthens their position if others take their statements seriously. In the end, their opponents give up in exasperation. Often it has become clear that the creationist wants nothing more than to shout their own misguided ranting to hear themselves speak. They are performing an act of intellectual masturbation. Stroking their own arguement in order to self satisfy.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
