A poor argument

"Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think." --George Bernard Shaw

   Earlier this week Kate, at An Analysis of Life posted an entry in which she related a comment she had received on an older entry about evolution. The comment, from Raven, of RebukeTheWorld, took the familiar form of a creationist's straw man argument against evolution.
   Remember, a straw man argument occurs when the arguer creates an imaginary position they claim is held by their opponent, and then attacks that position. It is an invalid argument, because the real position held by their opponent is never properly addressed.
   By way of an example, here is the comment Raven left:

Evolution isnt very honest...Skepticism...logic....but really the science in evolution usually starts with the big bang. Big Bang is all about faith. I'm actually writing an article about this tomorrow...but here is the faith....the first molecule...the first atom...the first matter...it started...but what started before the start?...Nothing is the start....matter just appears...its the same argument people use in who created God....how can God always exist?....When I think of what is most probable...to think matter is sooooooooo powerful that it can create itself from nothing and compare that with a possibility that a God created life...the later makes more sense...more possible...if one doesnt believe in a God and excepts science than they must ponder this...that first matter was pretty powerful...

I have friends of all beliefs...wedebate this stuff a lot but when you think on it....science cant explain something always existing...in human lingo..its called faith

~Raven

I tried to reply in the comment thread, but my response ran over the 2000 character limit for comments, and I ended up mailing it to Kate instead. I wanted to reproduce it here, because I think there is an important point to be made. Here is what I wrote to Kate:

   Unfortunately, Raven has committed one of the most basic errors of critical thinking. She has parroted what she has heard or read elsewhere from people who are less than honest. People like Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, and Kent Hovind, of Dr. Dino are guilty of spreading information that is, in some cases a distortion of the truth, and in other cases, flat out lies.
   The fact is that the study of evolution makes absolutely no claims whatsoever about the big bang, or other theories about the beginning of the universe. The study of evolution doesn't begin until living organisms actually appeared on the earth, which happened more than ten billion years after the beginning of the universe. Even then, the study of how life first arose still does not fall under the umbrella of evolutionary theory. That is a study all to its own called abiogensis, and is very hypothetical. The study of evolution does not begin until we can find the earliest fossil remains of actual, multi-cellular organisms. And from that point on, the evidence supporting evolutionary theory is significant, and mountainous. Common descent is a fact. No biological scientists refute it.
   The big bang theory, which falls more properly into the realm of physics and astronomy, is completely different from evolution, and cannot be discussed in the same argument. Even so, Raven has repeated inaccurate claims about that, as well. No scientist studying the big bang theory of the beginning of the universe claims that before the big bang there was nothing. Not one. The fact is, Raven is correct. Something cannot come from nothing. The laws of conservation of matter and energy tell us this. So, before the big bang there was something. We just have no idea what that was, because the violence of the big bang was such that it completely erased whatever was there before. There had to be something, we just have no way of seeing what it was. However,the big bang is still a theory very well supported by evidence. In fact, there were several recent observations taken by scientific teams that confirmed predictions made by big bang theory. This theory has a lot of weight. Like evolutionary theory, scientists are finding more and more that they can make predictions based upon our current understanding of the theory, and find those predictions later borne out by observation and experiment.
   No, Raven, and many like her, simply feel that science is an attack on their faith, and feel compelled to attack back. Unfortunately, they fail to grasp the most basic tenet of warfare: "know thy enemy." They refuse to actually research the things they are attacking, and so many times, they shoot wide of the mark.
-Paul

   Arguments like the ones Raven repeated here really annoy me because they are so intellectually dishonest. Now, I'm not annoyed at Raven. She has simply fallen into an intellectual trap set up by her religion. She's a Christian, and the arguments she is repeating came from people who represent themselves as Christians as well. As such, they have had, from a very early age, the big ten rules of conduct hammered into their heads.
   Let me see, which one is it? Oh, yes, number eight (or number nine, depending on which version of Christianity you subscribe to): thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exodus 20:16. While this commandment's language suggests a very specific interpretation within the law, it has generally been understood and taught to be a universal proscription against lying.
   So, when Raven, as a Christian, reads or hears a statement made by another professed Christian, she automatically makes the assumption they are telling the truth. Good on her. I like to always assume the best about others as well. Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. And this is what annoys me so much.
   The people with whom these arguments originate, people like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, are not stupid. These are highly educated people. They know their arguments are fallacious. They have carefully constructed them to be so. They use quasi-scientific language, and allude to real evidence supporting the bible's creation stories, but, when pressed, that evidence never seems to actually be forthcoming.
   Now, Raven may not have got these arguments straight from the horses' mouths. They have been perpetuated far and wide across this here Internet of ours. Her source was probably repeating them honestly, as was that person's source. But, the people who originally created those arguments know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they are based on lies, half-truths, and misdirections. These are people at the very heart of Christian apologetics in North America, and they are breaking, knowingly, and willfully, one of the sacred commandments they have been charged, by God, with upholding. And that hypocrisy is what really annoys me.

tags: Skepticism,