Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 01-23-2004, 04:26 AM

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_...sfallacies.htm

Peter Williams writes about Dawkins in his article

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_...sfallacies.htm

He quotes Dawkins as writing
'Dawkins has called ID theorists �a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters�, and claims: �it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I�d rather not consider that).� On the contrary, as Dembski writes: �one can be reasonably well-adjusted, remarkably well-educated (as many design theorists are), and still think Darwinism is a failed scientific paradigm.

Notice that Dembski swaps Dawkin's 'evolution', and substitutes 'Darwinism'.

In context, Dawkins was talking about the fact (which Dembski does believe) that there have been different creatures alive at different times on the planet.

Taking things out of context, swapping out words and substituing others to create straw men is the sort of creationist tactics known as 'Lying for God', anmd which reduce my respect for Williamd and Dembski to zero.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-23-2004, 05:37 AM

Bastards.

Matrioshka_Brain · 01-23-2004, 07:34 AM

Gee, that's SO unlike them!

:banghead: ... it's just another gem from the Ministry of Truth*... :banghead:

*Which is out near the Grand Canyon, under the guise of a Museum.

--------------------------

Honestly, what goes through their heads when they do this?

It's easy to see -how- they do it... but not -why-. They do it all the time (quote out of context). It's incredible. Unimaginable.

Albion · 01-23-2004, 11:09 AM

Wonderful. I suppose he's using the rationalisation that somehow he knows what Dawkins meant better than Dawkins did himself, so why not actually say it.

Wonder if Dawkins knows about this particular piece of editing.

It's like an experience I had on another board recently with a couple of Christian fundamentalists, one of whom has said again and again that Christians don't lie. The other one started posting creationist misquotes of scientists and a couple of us asked him to stop C&Ping from creationist websites because these quotes are all out of context and lying for Jesus is still lying. He denied having C&Pd and claimed that his quotes came from his extensive personal library of books on the subject (which means that he would have to have had a copy of T. H. Morgan's book "Evolution and Adaptation" from 1903 plus this 100th edition of "Origin of Species" with the Arthur Keith quote, which doesn't seem to exist). So we asked him for the context for his quotes - just the sentences preceding and following - and he went into full ignore-the-question-and-respond-with-obfuscation-and-ad-hominems mode. It was obvious that he didnt' have those books. But this other creationist, rather than holding his feet to the flames about this claim to have quoted direct from the sources, which could have easily been settled one way or the other, was egging him on and accusing us of lying and changing the subject. These people are so partisan that they can't see straight.

anthrosciguy · 01-23-2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion
one of whom has said again and again that Christians don't lie.

My daughter-in-law has become a fairly conservative Christian and has several times claimed that "Christians don't lie" as well as "Christians don't change their minds". I told those to my mom, who has been a lifelong Christian (albeit not a nutter or funadmentalist) and she just laughed and laughed.

Steven Carr · 01-24-2004, 04:48 AM

Here is what Dawkins originally wrote

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawk...lueprint.shtml

'We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Notice that Dawkins explicitly states that he is NOT talking about Darwin's theory of natural selection , which he accepts that biologists can doubt.

Yet Dembski deliberately ignores what Dawkins wrote and twists it to mean the exact opposite of what he wrote, and Williams laps up what Dembski says.

Liars for God???

wildlifer · 01-24-2004, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by anthrosciguy
My daughter-in-law has become a fairly conservative Christian and has several times claimed that "Christians don't lie" as well as "Christians don't change their minds". I told those to my mom, who has been a lifelong Christian (albeit not a nutter or funadmentalist) and she just laughed and laughed.

The "loudest" xtians in my experience, are also the most unscrupulous.

Steven Carr · 01-24-2004, 05:10 AM

Williams writes 'Dawkins has called ID theorists �a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters�. and cites
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/missin...tery102803.htm as proof.

When Dawkins spoke those words, he was not talking about ID theorists, he was talking about people who wanted to teach a 6,000 year old Earth in British schools.

Notice that Williams does not give a reference to Dawkins actual words so people can see the context.

Is Peter S. Williams a liar for God?

blindwatchmaker · 01-24-2004, 05:28 AM

This stuff makes me jumping mad.

It is garbage like this that makes you realize the price we pay for free speech.

abe smith · 01-24-2004, 08:44 AM

uh.... Perhaps the precept that "it's wrong to do evil so that good may come" is supposed to apply only to NON-chrxs.

Just let's be sure that we honorable & scrupulous atheist teeps keep our own behaviours impeccable. ("Our impeccable conceptions/conceits") ....

To be sure, perhaps (there's an oxymoron!) some of the most vocal protagonists (including alas SOME clerics) may literally "Not know what they're talking about". As the Massachusetts Bishops apparently know little or nothing about what real queers do, and how they (we) behave.

Archi O"Malley of Boston, perhaps having been advised by his lawyers that religious assertions will not work in secular courts & legislatures, has switched to citing the Bishops's (unspecified) "feelings" and expectations , about what queers MAY do if they are allowed to marry. Meanwhile the daily papers tell us daily about the Horrors committed daily by married heterosexual couples & parents upon one another & upon their ("legitimate") children.

....."and he that lies & knows not that he lies is (whatever); shun him." Because NOTHING you offer in response is going to change those alleged minds.

After all, the People In Power have a great deal to LOSE when their powers are taken from them by secular LAW. It's some kind of inside-out variant of "cui bono?"

01-23-2004, 04:26 AM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,479	Lying for God http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_...sfallacies.htm Peter Williams writes about Dawkins in his article http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_...sfallacies.htm He quotes Dawkins as writing 'Dawkins has called ID theorists �a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters�, and claims: �it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I�d rather not consider that).� On the contrary, as Dembski writes: �one can be reasonably well-adjusted, remarkably well-educated (as many design theorists are), and still think Darwinism is a failed scientific paradigm. Notice that Dembski swaps Dawkin's 'evolution', and substitutes 'Darwinism'. In context, Dawkins was talking about the fact (which Dembski does believe) that there have been different creatures alive at different times on the planet. Taking things out of context, swapping out words and substituing others to create straw men is the sort of creationist tactics known as 'Lying for God', anmd which reduce my respect for Williamd and Dembski to zero.

01-23-2004, 05:37 AM	#2
Oolon Colluphid Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Bastards.

01-23-2004, 07:34 AM	#3
Matrioshka_Brain Inactive Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Inbetween the Immediate Future and recent Past Posts: 591	Gee, that's SO unlike them! :banghead: ... it's just another gem from the Ministry of Truth... :banghead: Which is out near the Grand Canyon, under the guise of a Museum. -------------------------- Honestly, what goes through their heads when they do this? It's easy to see -how- they do it... but not -why-. They do it all the time (quote out of context). It's incredible. Unimaginable.

01-23-2004, 11:09 AM	#4
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Wonderful. I suppose he's using the rationalisation that somehow he knows what Dawkins meant better than Dawkins did himself, so why not actually say it. Wonder if Dawkins knows about this particular piece of editing. It's like an experience I had on another board recently with a couple of Christian fundamentalists, one of whom has said again and again that Christians don't lie. The other one started posting creationist misquotes of scientists and a couple of us asked him to stop C&Ping from creationist websites because these quotes are all out of context and lying for Jesus is still lying. He denied having C&Pd and claimed that his quotes came from his extensive personal library of books on the subject (which means that he would have to have had a copy of T. H. Morgan's book "Evolution and Adaptation" from 1903 plus this 100th edition of "Origin of Species" with the Arthur Keith quote, which doesn't seem to exist). So we asked him for the context for his quotes - just the sentences preceding and following - and he went into full ignore-the-question-and-respond-with-obfuscation-and-ad-hominems mode. It was obvious that he didnt' have those books. But this other creationist, rather than holding his feet to the flames about this claim to have quoted direct from the sources, which could have easily been settled one way or the other, was egging him on and accusing us of lying and changing the subject. These people are so partisan that they can't see straight.

01-24-2004, 04:48 AM	#6
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,479	Here is what Dawkins originally wrote http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawk...lueprint.shtml 'We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). Notice that Dawkins explicitly states that he is NOT talking about Darwin's theory of natural selection , which he accepts that biologists can doubt. Yet Dembski deliberately ignores what Dawkins wrote and twists it to mean the exact opposite of what he wrote, and Williams laps up what Dembski says. Liars for God???

01-24-2004, 05:10 AM	#8
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,479	Williams writes 'Dawkins has called ID theorists �a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters�. and cites http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/missin...tery102803.htm as proof. When Dawkins spoke those words, he was not talking about ID theorists, he was talking about people who wanted to teach a 6,000 year old Earth in British schools. Notice that Williams does not give a reference to Dawkins actual words so people can see the context. Is Peter S. Williams a liar for God?

01-24-2004, 05:28 AM	#9
blindwatchmaker Inactive Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 227	This stuff makes me jumping mad. It is garbage like this that makes you realize the price we pay for free speech.

01-24-2004, 08:44 AM	#10
abe smith Inactive Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	uh.... Perhaps the precept that "it's wrong to do evil so that good may come" is supposed to apply only to NON-chrxs. Just let's be sure that we honorable & scrupulous atheist teeps keep our own behaviours impeccable. ("Our impeccable conceptions/conceits") .... To be sure, perhaps (there's an oxymoron!) some of the most vocal protagonists (including alas SOME clerics) may literally "Not know what they're talking about". As the Massachusetts Bishops apparently know little or nothing about what real queers do, and how they (we) behave. Archi O"Malley of Boston, perhaps having been advised by his lawyers that religious assertions will not work in secular courts & legislatures, has switched to citing the Bishops's (unspecified) "feelings" and expectations , about what queers MAY do if they are allowed to marry. Meanwhile the daily papers tell us daily about the Horrors committed daily by married heterosexual couples & parents upon one another & upon their ("legitimate") children. ....."and he that lies & knows not that he lies is (whatever); shun him." Because NOTHING you offer in response is going to change those alleged minds. After all, the People In Power have a great deal to LOSE when their powers are taken from them by secular LAW. It's some kind of inside-out variant of "cui bono?"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.