I have been taking part in a number of interesting creationism/evolution debates on other boards and I have noticed that there is a general attitude of disdain toward TalkOrigins from the creationist camp. Understandable, you might say, as it is ‘the enemy’, but the problem does not appear to be directly related to the content as such, but rather the fact that a very wide range of creationist arguments are dealt with all in one place.
A typical comment might be "Oh, TalkOrigins again :rolleyes: " (more often than not accompanied with a complete failure to address the argument).
So, is it bad to quote largely from a single source? (and is it right to call TalkOrigins ‘a single source’, in view of the way that it always offers numerous cites itself?)
I would look around on the creationist sites you’re going to. Is there a comprehensive refutation of talkorigin’s points around the site somewhere? If so, it might not be a good idea to point folks there. If not, it seems fine to do so.
When faced with a :rolleyes: sort of non-response, you might try responding equally flippantly with something like, “Yeah, TalkOrigins again. Aren’t facts annoying?” It should return some of the mild mud-sling at TalkOrigins back to the tosser.
Yes, I’ve noticed that the way creationists deal with the talk.origins archive is to say, “oh, talk.origins? They’re so biased. If they only present the evolutionist side, clearly they’re not going to tell the truth, because they’re not balanced.” (In fact, there is at least one essay on the t.o. site dealing with an essay on, IIRC, AIG which makes that claim. Ironic, isn’t it?)
Fundies are doing the same thing to www.infidels.org. You may remember that DITWD (not quite a fundie, but close enough) was constantly waving his hands and declaring that you couldn’t believe anything on the Infidels site, because they were “biased.” I’ve heard the same claim over at the Pizza Parlor, again without even an attempt at backing it up with evidence.
I have, in fact, considered submitting my FAQs to the t.o. archive, but I decided that it would be best to keep them separate so that it would be harder for fundies to dismiss them.
Talk.origins has a set of some 17 links to pro-creationist sites, including a link to a much larger unabridged list. Are the creationist able to name a pro-creation site which has links to anti-creationist sites?
You could simply remind them that TalkOrigins is a repository of information, and that not all articles found therein are, in fact, from a single source (since multiple authors contribute those articles). And that you could just as easily post a dozen links, each to a different site, which would provide them with the same information.
I just visited the site again. As long as it states the facts and does not become a liberal propaganda rag. Or an outlet for PETA or greenpeace. I will contend it is one of the best science sites on the net.
Well, it’s clearly a biased site. It happens to be correct, and its bias is supported by scads of peer-reviewed science, but you cannot argue it doesn’t have an agenda. It’s agenda is to support the correct and scientifically supported evolutionary theory, but you cannot argue that it doesn’t have an agenda.
The problem is not that it has an agenda, but that people who disagree with it feel that saying it has an agenda is a valid counter-argument. It is not.