Hi RAZD,
Though I'm replying to you, this applies to others as well.
I'm not having much luck encouraging people to avoid inflammatory characterizations, which includes characterizing something as a lie or a person as a liar. To show something or someone incorrect only requires providing the evidence. To show something a lie or someone a liar requires information that is usually unavailable. Here at EvC Forum I encourage people to assume someone sincerely believes what they're saying unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Look at it this way. To believe that primary creationist sources are lying and know they are lying is as ridiculous as believing that scientists are lying about evolution and know they are lying. In other words, believing that primary creationist sources are lying and know they are lying is to make the same mistake creationists make concerning science.
Yes, I know there are flim-flam artists out there fleecing the religiously gullible for monetary gains, but the vast majority of primary creationist sources are not in it for the money. If you think about it there's just not a whole lot of money to be made in this particular area of religious nonsense - look at Kent Hovind, who despite not willingly paying any federal taxes ever that we know of lived a very modest lifestyle, and if Hovind couldn't get rich by selling the creationist snake oil for all it was worth, no creationist can. While I disliked Dawkins' recent book, I liked his title very much (
The God Delusion for those who haven't yet heard of this book), and I think the term deluded, which you've often used yourself, is more accurate and fair, and as long as it is accompanied by the evidence that makes clear why only delusion could explain believing otherwise.
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2