Many times when I have read statements from fundamentalist websites, I have found that most authors spend a large portion of their writings insulting scientists, rather than actually trying to create a real refutation. Why do you think this is? (Note: I already have a good clue as to why they do this, but I would like to hear other people’s opinions.)
Because they’re idiots. Having no evidence supporting their side tends to restrict the debate to attacks and non-sequitors
Because ad hominem attacks, directed against those elitist eggheads, are incredibly powerful rhetorical tactics. Their intention is not to prove, but to convince, and emotional components can be very convincing.
They operate on the belief system. This doesn’t require facts or reason. And insulting anyone who disagrees with you is an acceptable form of repudiation.
Moved MPSIMS --> IMHO.
It isn’t just the creationists that do it - negativity, judgementalism and ad hominem attacks are core characteristics of Christian fundamentalism in general. Mostly, I think, it’s because fundamentalism is, by definition an overly-simplistic belief system. It attempts to reduce every situation to black and white. To good & bad, right & wrong, us vs. them, in-groups & out-groups. Four legs good, two legs bad", that sort of thing.
Most fundamentalists are not capable of carefull analysis or of discerning nuance. A thing, to them, is all right or all wrong. If they can show a scientist or a politician or a teacher to be “bad” in some way, then everything they say or do must ipso facto be bad as well. So, to their way of thinking, an ad hominem attack is the simplest and most direct means to make a point.
SS
I’m not convinced creationists spend more time on insults than on generating laughably lame pseudoscientific theories. I’d need to see a systematic review of creationist website postings, though it’d be understandable if no one had yet had the stomach for such a task.
One bet is that the most common insult is along the lines of “Evolution is just like a religion!”, which leads me to wonder why creationists are so consumed by self-loathing (if their most hated enemies are supposedly religious, what does that say about religion?).
This one’s easy-If atheism is a religion that opposes Christianity, and the opposite of Christianity is Satanism, then..Atheists are really Satanists!!
As opposed to the anti-Creationist tactics on this thread? Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is my friend, Pot.
I believe the theory of evolution is true (as true as any working scientific theory, love me some antibiotics!).
I find there are three types of evolution debates. The first is that which pits over-simplified science against pseudoscience (because the most complex science is always a working theory, which many scientists fear will be “too easy” for creationists to attack), and that which pits science against religion as ways for learning about the external world (probably the most interesting stuff happens here), and finally the ad hominem “who is better” attacks which end in recounts of the Spanish Inquisition and Stalinist purges and which are insufferable for all involved.
I would say this thread fits into the last type, with a bit of the middle one thrown in to make it sound legit.
No, but as a precursor Atheism sure leaves the door open for (LaVeyan) Satanism.
Riiight. Do you know what else leads to Satanism? Eating breakfast.
I think it has a strong component of psychological projection. Fundamentalists believe all sorts of things just because some prophet or priest said so; therefore they assume that’s why “evolutionists” “believe in evolution.” So if they can discredit the “prophet”, they discredit evolution*. They think that if they discredit Darwin “evolutionists” will fall away from evolution, because they don’t really understand that’s it’s the facts that are convincing not individual scientists.
*Or science in general, or atheism, or whatever; you see similar behavior in for example believers who bash Dawkins and appear to think that he is some Prophet of Atheism. Just discredit the Prophet, and atheism will vanish because the only reason anyone is an atheist is because they are followers of Dawkins.
Your point would be valid if this thread existed in a vacuum. However, in the entire context of organized Creationist mischief, I think you are wrong in equating the two.
Calling someone a liar is bad. But when someone actually is a liar – and I’ve seen Duane Gish and Henry Morris speaking to college students – then saying, “They’re lying” is simple unavoidable truth. They are liars.
If you have the stomach, listed to Mel Mulder’s daily radio show, “Beyond Intelligent Design.” Listen, in particular, for his little vocal snicker. It usually comes right after the most egregious possible straw-man slander. He does it every single day. Then try to tell me that we’re just the same as he is…
General agreement, except I wonder if that applies to the “cream of the crap,” those like Gish, Morris, Mulder, etc., who obviously know that they are lying, but do it anyway. They have enough scientific literacy to be completely aware that what they say falls short of the truth. Again, brace yourself, take some dramamine, and listen to Mulder’s radio show.
The ordinary preacher in his pulpit may not know what he is saying is false. But the hard-core creationist lecturers damn well do.
You’re attacking the person, not the argument. You’re not giving evidence, but calling names.
And yet, that is what you accuse them of doing.
Ergo, you are acting like hypocrites on this thread.
Wouldn’t it be much more fruitful to start a thread composed of common fallacies put forth by creationists and pithy, true, evidence-based answers to them?
But that wouldn’t be fun, would it?
It might be more “fruitful”, but the question in the OP was, in fact "(why do most (fundamentalist) authors spend a large portion of their writings insulting scientists, rather than actually trying to create a real refutation."
Most of the folks that have responded have made an honest effort to answer the question. You OTOH are just objecting to the question on the grounds that it’s hypocritical.
“More fruitful”, indeed. If you don’t approve of the question, start your own thread. Make it as fruitful as you like.
SS
Depends what’s for breakfast.
Wrong. I gave a cite, which you can easily look into yourself, and see for yourself that the creationist in question is lying.
I’m calling names on the basis of the evidence.
Creationists call names on the basis of made-up, straw-man, fallacious evidence.
You are wholly in error if you think the two are the same.
(This is like the childish tu quoque of “You’re being intolerant” when someone condemns bigotry. Yeah, funny, ha ha, the two are the same. Except that they aren’t, and the stance is stupid.)