Evolution, Scientific Inquiry and Liberals

The definition of hell is being condescended to by idiots. It will probably be MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Contessa Brewer sneering at you for all of eternity for not believing in evolution.

Roughly one-third of my 2006 No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," is an attack on liberals' creation myth, Darwinian evolution. I presented the arguments of all the luminaries in the field, from the retarded Richard Dawkins to the brilliant Francis Crick, and disputed them.

But apparently liberals didn't want to argue back.

Despite Matthews' obsessive fixation on the topic, manifested by his constantly asking elected Republicans if they believe in evolution, in a one-hour interview with me on "Godless" -- the very book that is chockablock with attacks on Darwinism -- Matthews didn't ask me a single question about the subject.

No liberal did. Matthews doesn't even know what evolution is.

Read the rest of  "THE FLASH MOB METHOD OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY" by my One True Love, Ann Coulter, here.

How Evolutionists Deal with Contrary Evidence

How Evolutionists Deal with Contrary Evidence

Edited 10-09-2011

Also, a new version is available on video, here.

• Deny that contrary evidence even exists
• Refuse to see it
• Refuse to discuss it
• Refuse to listen to it
• Malign people who disbelieve at all costs, ignore basic reasoning skills
• Lie about people and organizations who disbelieve in evolution
• Use uninformed, undereducated thuggish disciples to patrol and attack people who disbelieve
• Use the media, especially social media
• Never allow the playing field to be level
• Keep insisting that evolution is a "fact", even though it is assumed through faith, not evidence (that's our little secret, Skippy)
• Pretend to be totally objective and unbiased, despite the fact that this goes against human nature
• Demand that disbelievers have all knowledge of all sciences
• Appeal to the "might makes right" fallacy of "most scientists believe in evolution" to establish "truth"
• Commit tu quoque fallacy, "Yeah, but you do it, too!" (Not true, but do it anyway)
• Get angry, deliberately misunderstand, put words in the mouths of those who disbelieve
• Ridicule the straw man that you just constructed (see above)
• Ridicule some more — whatever strikes your fancy

For a slightly less snarky approach to the creation-evolution controversy, check out my Piltdown Superman Weblog.

Logic Lessons: Intermezzo

Buona sera. I think we should —

"Wait, what's an intermezzo, Cowboy Bob?"

 

I dunno, Nicky. I think it's that little floor-between-floors in a building. Go ask Ernie the Gambler, he gets around.

 

As I was saying, I think we should pull back the throttle on the Fallacies Express for a moment. Although I like learning about them as well as writing them up, there are so many logical fallacies, variations, blendings and so forth that the series will go on far too long. I have a few more in mind that I really need to write about, and then I may put a halt to them.

From there, I think I will do a kind of summary explaining the bigger aspects. That is, logical fallacies get categorized and sub-categorized, even overlapping. I see some greater principles at work that these sub-categories represent.

Also, I have learned that sometimes something will seem to be a fallacy, but is actually quite valid. For instance, something may resemble an Appeal to Authority when it is entirely fitting and proper to be referring to an authority on a subject. If I quote William Lane Craig on philosophy, that is fitting. But if I refer to a comment he made on, say, the perihelion of the planet Mercury, I would probably be in error. Relying entirely on an authority for the bulk of your argument is weak. So is finding the one crackpot archaeologist that agrees with your preconceptions and rejecting the scores of better qualified archaeologists that disagree with your position.

 

Another example of the appearance of fallacy would be that if I say Alex cannot be trusted because he is confused and tells scores of lies so you should not listen to him, or that Norman deliberately misleads through selective citing. Am I Poisoning the Well? On the surface, yes. But when I show you that my claims about Alex and Norman are accurate, you would do well to heed my warning about trusting them without corroboration and substantiation.

My point is to take it slow and do not rush to judgment. Think it through, because something may not be a fallacy after all, capice?

For that matter, it's considered rude to point out someone's logical fallacy. I do it anyway, usually to trolls and bullies. But for a rational discussion in a decent setting, it is best to restrain your equines and not engage in show jumping right away.

A statement that someone made about logical fallacies seemed rather startling to me. There are times that they are unavoidable. That is, not every discussion can be perfect, and sometimes the fallacies are not exactly wrong. But those are rare occasions.

Some people cannot learn how to think clearly no matter how much you attempt to reason with them. If their minds are clouded with hate, all they will do is look for an excuse to criticize or attack, and you will always appear wrong to them no matter how right you really are. It is best to move on and save your efforts for someone who actually wants an intelligent discussion.

I recommend that you keep in mind two things: First, you need to be as accurate as possible for your own credibility for others listening or reading, because they may gain something useful from you. Second, you are ready to avoid traps, snares and simple errors the other person makes and you have a better chance of staying on the subject. A third point for Christians is that we want to represent Jesus to the best of our abilities and through his leading

Islamic Bias in Our Schools

The subject of Islam in America is front and center with Rep. Peter King's hearings in Washington, D.C., on radical Muslims in the United States. While acknowledging that the vast majority of American Muslims are law-abiding, patriotic citizens, King pointed to a Pew poll which reported that 15 percent of Muslim American men between the ages of 18 and 29 could support suicide bombings. "There are realities we can't ignore," said King.

When it comes to how Islam is taught in our nation's public schools, I echo King's admonition - there are realities we can't ignore. 

Islam in Textbooks

This past fall, the Texas State Board of Education passed a resolution against "Pro-Islamic/Anti-Christian Bias" in textbooks.

 Read the rest of "Islam in Our Schools" here.

Proof of Evolution: Hair

Uncle Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Edvard Grieg, Ludwig van Beethoven
(Click for larger size)

Obviously, this is not a coincidence! They must have evolved from a common ancestor, since they all have adventurous follicles.


And now, for your dining and dancing pleasure:

Atheist "Morality" Video - Having it Both Ways

Where Did Modern Science Originate?

Modern science would not have come very far without Christians. I know it goes against everything that propagandists want you to believe, but it is true. Read "The Christian Foundation of Modern Science" here.