Last night, a commenter named Goeff Casey left a comment trying to defend Paul Nelson against the charge of lying. Since that post has long since slid off the front page, I'm moving it up top so it doesn't get lost. As we'll see, the attempt fails badly.
You say that you have caught creationists lying over the years. Please do post them, for I think it can be shown that they have not lied at all.
Given the inability you show to recognizing the blatant lie of Nelson concerning Keith Miller's position, it would be a clear waste of time to do so.
As to the present accusation, I would say that we need to regard it in the larger context of the philosophical difference that divides creationists (or ID proponents) from evolutionists: in examination of the physical and living world evolutionists infer that God was not necessary to bring these things about whereas the other camp infers that God was required to bring it about.
The context does not change the fact that Nelson lied. But it's nice to see you admit that creationists and ID proponents are interchangable.
What Paul is evidently attempting to do is get Keith to admit that if human intelligence can be inferred from artifacts or evidence of human agency, surely intelligence can be inferred in the design seen in the physical and living world.
That is Paul's claim, yes. But Keith disagrees with him, as do I. The fact that Paul was trying to get him to admi that, however, does nothing to change thae fact that Paul lied about Keith's position. But even on this count, Paul is clearly wrong. Just because one can infer the actions of human intelligence - which no one in their right mind disputes - does not mean that one can infer a disembodied, supernatural "intelligence" in the abstract. The analogy is completely unwarranted, and Keith rightly pointed that out.
Whereas Keith as a lay-person would normally call the police, a point I am sure Paul would recognize outside of a heated philosophical debate, Keith's philosophical position does not allow him to jump to the conclusion that a thief was involved, since there is always n + 1 explanations possible. This is simply the point that Paul is trying to make. He is simply trying to point out the difficulty of Keith's philosophical position (notice that Keith seems very reluctant to use the word "intelligence" even when referring to the thief or to human agency in general). When it is acknowledged that both these scholars are arguing at a philosophical level and not regarding day to day practical matters, the "lie" rather seems to fade away or perhaps disappear. But you seem to want to major on a technicallity and say "Ah, I've finally caught a creationist in a lie".
Complete and utter nonsense. If Paul had said, "Keith agreed with me that a human thief was to blame for the missing items in his car, but he refuses to accept that because we can legitimately make that inference we can also infer the action of a disembodied, supernatural intelligence from the facts of biochemistry", then he would have been telling the truth. But he didn't say that. He said quite explicitly that Paul refused to infer that a human thief was the correct explanation for the missing items in the car. That was a lie. Keith not only didn't say that, he quite plainly said the opposite. Paul lied about Keith's position to make him sound like an idiot and get the audience to laugh at him. That is shameful. And these ridiculous excuses to not change that fact one little bit.
- Log in to post comments
OT a bit, but I must say that this debate amuses me to no end because I feel Nelson's analogy missed the mark from the start. ID is more like having found the car with broken windows, the alleged thieve's fingerprints, DNA and a signed credit card receipt in the car and items from the car in the alleged thieve's possession we are to accept his explanation that an invisible, unidentified boogie man gave him my CD player and as back up, he presents a 2,000 year old manuscript describing a similar but not necessarily identical boogie man. Sure, I'd vote the guy was innocent... after my 14th Harvey Wallbanger... maybe.
This argument actually seems to undermine itself. If the possibility of n + 1 explanations given a natural framework is somehow supposed to make Keith's philosophical position difficult, it seems to me that Paul's position is in comparison even more difficult, seeing as how he wants to be comfortable with both natural AND supernatural explanations -- and seeing as how supernatural explanations don't have to follow any rules of consistency or plausibility within nature. Paul's philosophical position would not make it any easier to "jump to the conclusion that a thief was involved" at all, since -- no matter what the evidence -- it could always have been a miracle of God (aka "the Intelligent Designer.")
By the way, that little throwaway phrase "heated philosophical debate" is the only real defense of the actual accusation. Paul Nelson implied that Keith Miller would NOT call the police (ie he lied) because he (Paul Nelson) was "heated." You know how uncomfortable we all get when we're hot. The poor guy. Now let's all get busy arguing over something else, as if it was the issue in the first place.
Ah, I've finally seen a sunset.
Indeed -- if there are n+1 explanations, that fact is independent of your philosophical position, unless your position specifically excludes certain explanations.
...But you seem to want to major on a technicallity and say "Ah, I've finally caught a creationist in a lie".
It should be noted here that ANY fact, logic, or experiment that proves a creationist is lying, will automatically be relabelled a "technicality" by said creationist and his chums. See also "pathetic level of detail."
*************
"ID is more like having found the car with broken windows, the alleged thieve's fingerprints, DNA and a signed credit card receipt in the car and items from the car in the alleged thieve's possession we are to accept his explanation that an invisible, unidentified boogie man gave him my CD player and as back up, he presents a 2,000 year old manuscript describing a similar but not necessarily identical boogie man."
*************
Actually, ID is more like having found the car with broken windows and a stolen DVD player on a deserted planet with no sign of life or that life ever existed there. THEN, one would seriously have to consider non-human intelligence.
Of course, there would still be no call for a supernatural intelligence...unless sitting on the front seat, suspended in violation of gravitation and electromagnetic forces, was a glowing stone tablet with the signature "YAHWEH WAS HERE".
Ed wrote
I think you meant "Keith" there, rather than "Paul".
Except for all those religious evolutionists who believe that God was necessary to set everything in motion.
RE: Skemono's post above
As a Christian, I infer from the evidence that evolution is a continuing force in the diversity of life, and amply demonstrated by DNA, relationships between current living species, fossils, and morphology. Where God's role in that process -- if any -- is manifested is not known. The lack of clear or convincing evidence that God manages evolution is not a denial of God by living things and the rest of creation, but is instead simply a fact of science.
How anyone can "infer" God was necessary in these processes is a mystery to me, and it's a mystery to Mr. Casey, too, regardless whether he chooses to acknowledge it.
I really resent so-called Christians trying to pick a fight with me, or with science, or with any scientist or follower of science who studies evolution. I infer from that action that those people are opposed to learning, to education, or to any investigation of God's creation. Fie on them. That's not a view any Christian should take.