Begone!
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
... AiG published a particular article entitled Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, and followed this with a related Creation magazine article Moving forward—arguments we think creationists shouldn’t use. This was not aimed at any particular person or organization, but was produced as a result of the collective wisdom of AiG’s trained scientists and other professionals, based on years of research and experience.When an attempted critique of this AiG article appeared on Kent Hovind’s Web site, AiG was somewhat surprised (and disappointed) to note that it frequently and significantly misrepresents and/or misunderstands the statements and positions made in our carefully researched document.
In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, we believed we had to respond to Kent Hovind’s critique (albeit with a heavy heart), particularly because of the mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good.
Before responding to specifics, it may be worth pointing out the obvious: If these arguments don’t convince fellow creationists, why would any creationist think they are going to convince evolutionists? And it would be worth revisiting our articles hyperlinked above for our motivation in compiling these dubious arguments.
Our purpose is to encourage God’s people to avoid fallacious arguments and incorrect information that could become a stumbling block to those who have the background to understand the material. (By the way, AiG has met with Kent Hovind in the past to discuss many of the items below, including the fraudulent claims of Ron Wyatt.)
...
[Hovind says he links to AiG's website even though they don't link to his.]
We certainly promote many materials produced by other creationists, but not just because they are ‘creationists’. We also promote material by some of the Intelligent Design movement for example, on merit. There are minimum criteria of quality and science understanding. We also have difficulty with the idea of promoting sites which have various overtly bizarre ideas, not just in creation issues, but also linking creation issues with other ‘fringe’ thinking (such as arguments against paying income tax, various cancer cures, etc.) which regardless of their merits or otherwise, have nothing to do with the creation issue. Our actions in this matter are not the product of aloofness, but of caution and concern for the credibility of the creation movement as a whole.
...
One reason for such a list ["Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"] is precisely because there are many arguments still being widely used which fly in the face of ‘facts’ and reason. Sometimes this is because the people concerned are not aware of the realities involved, sometimes because they do not understand them, or because they have not bothered to really assess something for themselves. It’s often ‘easier’ to just go with the arguments which seem to ‘work’ in convincing an audience. This is why certain practices and procedures of peer-review (as discussed in this entire document) are desirable, i.e. a ‘self-critical’ process within the creation movement. It is perhaps easier for an organization composed of a substantial number of scientists and thinkers to undertake such processes than organizations which are controlled by a single individual. Nevertheless, our list was not aimed at Kent Hovind, in spite of the defensiveness in his response overall.
...[big snip]...
Unfortunately, Kent Hovind’s document repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands not only our article, but the issues themselves. Our article was not aimed at any individual, but we plead with all creationist ‘lone wolf’ popularizers to familiarize themselves with the immense amount of good science being done by qualified (though fallible) creationist researchers, most of them not even associated with our own ministry. These are people who have shown that they are willing to be corrected, and to interact with their critics formally in peer-reviewed fashion.
We plead for all of us to swallow pride and, without sacrificing independence of thought and originality, be prepared to submit to the rigors of peer review and to the thoroughly Biblical process of ‘iron sharpening iron’. That would be real ‘working together’, not some artificial unity in which scientifically trained creationists (i.e. Bible-believing scientists) are supposed to smile sweetly while plainly wrong and even fraudulent claims are being promoted in the name of ‘Creationism’.
Such a process, recognizing the fallibility of all of us, would also delineate more clearly such things as the burden of proof in regard to various claims, and would help separate ‘shaky, flaky’ theories from reasonable speculations—i.e., legitimate hypotheses which seek to be constrained by Scripture, fact, and the faculties of rational thought with which our Creator has endowed us.
That is just ludicrously disingenuous.
Yes, but that isn't evidence, that's an explanation for a lack of evidence.
Anyone that read the articles could see this footnote is a quote and it did not come from Hovind
Its understood just fine
Wolf
As I said, when Hovind stops labeling anyone who disagrees with him a liar, perhaps I'll take complaints about name-calling more seriously. As for the second part, post ten never "debunked" him because of his tax returns - in fact, it doesn't really mention his theories on evolution at all. If you insist on reading things that aren't there, I don't think anyone's going to be able to help you.
The reputation and a detail of events that Tacitus provided was evidence apart from a Biblical account. The reason why Jesus was not splattered all over the Roman Empire by secularist because it was forbidden and probably considered Christianity to be only about worshiping an insane Jew. Not a very popular idea to the elites who could read and write.
Also I find Books of the Bible to be highly accurate in regards to historical events. The Bible, even among secularist, should not be frowned upon in regards to it's historical accuracy.
Considering that the term "straw men" has been used five times on this thread, one of which was in the article itself, three of which were by you, andthe last of which was not referring to any known scientific fraud, I guess I'm not sure why I should feel compelled to "explain" something that you're pretty clearly imagining. That is, I guess I could speculate on why you see things that aren't there, but I don't think you'd like my suggestions.
Don't think I would go there. Some of the dumbest people I have known were Mensa.
Anyway, I am just lurking, as I have truthfully never heard of Hovind, and am just watching the thread unfold. Don't have a horse to ride in this race.
I'm pretty sure a goldfish evolving into a cat isn't an example of a "known scientific fraud". You'll pardon me if I don't assign your complaints much weight.
That's backwards from the actual anthropic principle. It's like saying voles live in my house because the house was created for them. It's even more like saying owls live in back of the house created for them because voles live in the house until they are caught and thrown out into the yard for the owls.
How much weight were you asked to assign them when considering his arguments on evolution? None. So I guess everybody's happy, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.