Attack Arguments: Useless waste of time
Recently, while on my way home from University, I was stopped by a young Christian gentleman who forcefully explained that he had a great gift to give to me. Dubious (and suspecting the gift would prove to be ‘Jesus!’), I listened for a few moments before apologizing and explaining that I was an Atheist and that, while I was willing to take one of his pamphlets, I would have to decline his gift. I somewhat reluctantly do my best to be polite to people attempting to ’sell me salvation’ on street-corners, however they rarely extend me the same courtesy, unfortunately. This gentleman, hearing the word ‘atheist’ cross my lips, immediately became visibly agitated and it is his rage-laden ejaculation that is the subject of this post.
“The Big Bang doesn’t make sense, huh?”
This argument is poor for reasons that will be immediately obvious to any person who has dealt with ‘Creation Science’ and, indeed, most intelligent people (I’m sure Jack Scanlan, our resident authority on the Creation/Evolution ‘debate’ knows this style well). Primarily, it is barely an argument at all: attacking the perceived beliefs of your opponent does absolutely nothing to argue your own position and, instead, is likely to cause skeptics to doubt the validity of your claim. In the evolution-creation debate, this can most obviously be seen in the constant attacks on the (just a…) theory of evolution. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what ‘Creation Science’ actually is! I’ve tried to read widely on the topic, but the only examples seem to be attempts to disprove evolution, as though this would automatically suggest Creation was correct.
This false dichotomy is evident in the answer of my would-be converter above. If I concede (he shrewdly thinks*) that the Big Bang theory doesn’t make sense, then the only alternative is to fall to my knees and praise the magnificence of God’s creation. In fact, (hard as this may be to believe) I am not a Theoretical Physicist and I freely admit that I do not understand how the Universe came about. I’ve read a few hypotheses and certainly am interested to know the answer, but it is hardly my field of expertise. My answer to this young man was that sure, perhaps it didn’t make sense, I’m not well versed in the intricacies. I pointed out that there are alternative models and explanations widely available at a reasonably low cost and that, perhaps, he should pick up a copy of God: The Failed Hypothesis and (as I have done) attempt to understand where Physicists are coming from with the ‘Big Bang’ model and others.
Consider if I had attempted the reverse argument. “Well, Creation is full of holes. Therefore evolution is definitely the case.” While the former part of the statement is extremely valid, the latter is absurd. Evolution stands on its own two feet with a superb body of evidence and its validity as a Theory and as a discipline are utterly divorced from any opponent explanations that exist.
Of course, it is doubtful that the gentleman will read Victor Stenger. I conjecture that he may have thrown out the ‘big bang’ statement in the hopes of offending me, based on my perceived beliefs. Unfortunately for him, I am perfectly amicable to discussion of my ideas, however misguided the attempted discussion may be. I vacillated on the threshold of having a debate with the man, but my sweetheart was waiting nearby and the idea of going home with her appealed to me much more than standing on a streetcorner being yelled at by an angry Christian.
Attacking an idea in conflict with your own, while interesting and valuable in its own right, has absolutely no bearing on your own argument. An alternative theory is not automatically true if one theory is disproven. If the Big Bang is decided to be an outmoded theory (for all I know, it may have been) then it will not automatically mean that scientists will ‘throw in the towel’ and accept Creation. Neither would the disproving of evolution (extremely unlikely at this stage, from my understanding) make a case for Creationism, no matter how diligently they try to make it seem so. An argument or hypothesis must stand based on its own evidence and remarks such as the one addressed to me by this streetcorner Christian only serve to illuminate the starkness of one’s own argument.
–
*Note: I cannot read minds and this statement is a mere hypothesis of what the gentleman may have thought.
Tags: Argument, Big Bang, Christian, Conversion, Religion, Streetcorner
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
March 24, 2009 at 4:59 am
There is a fundamental flaw in Mr. Carabellese’s argument, and it is this: In regards to origins, whether of the entire world or of living creatures, there really are ONLY 2 possible explanations: design and chance, which are equivalent to creation and evolution. Therefore, any evidence that tends to disprove one automatically lends support to the other, by process of elimination. Thus, evidence against evolution does lend credence to creation , because it’s the only other choice available for origins.
Mr. C. is correct that “an alternative theory is not automatically true if one theory is disproven,” but, like I said above, if there are ONLY 2 alternatives, evidence against one does strengthen the other.
Beyond this point, there is a great deal of evidence for creation. Since Mr. C. has “tried to read widely on the subject,” it’s very surprising that he has not come across some of this evidence. What has he been reading?
March 24, 2009 at 8:50 am
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this matter. While I will grant you that there may only be ‘chance and design’ (though I’m not absolutely sure I agree), these are not necessarily immediately Creation and Evolution. Specifically, if evolution were disproven, then another (in your view) chance-based theory could quite likely replace it. The process of natural selection, however, is not one I would call chance based, so I assume you’re referring to origins only, as you indicated.
Again, I disagree that there are only two alternatives. While it would certainly give grounds for reconsidering Creation, disproving evolution would not strengthen Creation’s position in any substantial way.
I am genuinely interested to see the evidence for creation that you speak of, please provide a citation and I’ll be sure to check it out.
I’m hoping to have this article published on the Young Australian Skeptics website. When that happens, if you’d care to re-assert your concerns there, I’m sure Jack Scanlan would be able to clarify this point more capably than I.
March 25, 2009 at 1:42 am
I sincerely hope that you will carefully consider this reply, Daniel, because it will confront you with the truth. If you accept it as such, it has the potential to change your life. It is not often in life that one is presented with an opportunity to accept life-changing truth, and if you reject this one, you may not ever get another one. Needless to say, I hope and pray that you will accept this one …
In my previous reply, I stated that there are ONLY 2 possible explanations for the origin of the world, and of life. You disagreed with me, with qualification. First of all, although you agreed that ‘chance and design’ might be the only alternatives (you added that you weren’t absolutely sure about this) you argued that “these are not immediately Creation and Evolution.” I assume by this rather enigmatic comment that you mean that neither Creation nor Evolution are entirely the result of either design or chance, that either process may contain elements of both (design and chance, that is). You are wrong about this. The foundation of Creation is definitely design; there is no chance involved in this process (some people believe that the Creator initiated the process and then left things up to chance, but this is not the position of true creationists and is, in any event, a peripheral argument). On the other hand, the foundation of Evolution is chance; there is no design in this process (seriously, what evolutionist literature ever credits a Creator, or Designer, in the evolutionary process?). The very heart of the evolutionary process is random, natural events; its entire purpose is to explain how the world came into being without any involvement from the supernatural.
Recognizing that chance and design are the only alternatives for origins, some evolutionists believe in panspermia, the idea that life on earth was ‘seeded’ from life on another planet. This simply begs the question: how did that life come into existence? And once again, the only alternatives are design or chance.
You also say that “the process of natural selection … is not one [you] would call chance based.” Limiting the process of NS that you are referring to to that involved in macroevolution .. as opposed to microevolution (the process which creates varieties of creatures within kinds, which creationists completely acknowledge) NS certainly is based upon chance. In order for a creature to evolve into a completely different one – an undeniable requirement of the TOE – a mutation must cause a change in the genetic structure of the creature, in the DNA, that causes an entirely new feature in the creature’s structure. Natural Selection has nothing to act upon without such changes. The question, then, is this change the result of design or chance? Evolutionists would invariably argue that this change was the result of a random mutation, or genetic shift – of a chance event, in other words. Their theory absolutely demands it. Therefore, the foundation of NS is chance.
So, then, Daniel, there are indeed ONLY TWO alternatives for the origin of the world, and of life: chance and design. This is the TRUTH that I hope you recognize. And since this is true, the indisputable corollary is that evidence against evolution does indeed strengthen the case for creation – because there is no other option.
Finally, I would be more than happy to provide you with evidence for creation – and there is a great deal of it – but if you do not recognize the fundamental truth that I have explained to you here … that there are only 2 possibilities for origins, chance and design, and creation and evolution represent them … there is no point in continuing this dialogue. It would be a waste of our time.
March 25, 2009 at 6:18 am
As I have said above, this is not my area of expertise and it would be extremely inappropriate for me to attempt to refute your arguments on the basis of my limited knowledge.
” I assume by this rather enigmatic comment that you mean that neither Creation nor Evolution are entirely the result of either design or chance, that either process may contain elements of both (design and chance, that is).”
This was not what I intended. I suggested that another ‘chance-based’ theory could easily replace evolution, should it be disproven. Again, this doesn’t seem likely.
At its heart, this issue is largely unrelated to the article anyway. The Creation/Evolution debate is used as an example and it is not my goal to be an authoritative source on the matter. I will leave that to Evolutionary Biologists. As I have said, though, if you are interested in pursuing this dialogue further with somebody with more extensive knowledge in the area, please leave a melange of your previous two comments at the Young Australian Skeptics article of the same name.
http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/03/attack-arguments-waste-of-time/
March 25, 2009 at 1:45 am
I noticed that my name is spelled incorrectly in the “Comment” box. It should be Bartholomew, with only one “h”.
March 3, 2010 at 1:30 am
Excellent post, Daniel!