Well, one out of three, anyway…
Fine. I’ll spread the word, but that word has no bearing on Hovind’s creationism arguments. I hate to be the one to point this out and bear the brunt of David’s flames, but such is my lot in life, I suppose. Using Hovind’s anti-semitism, real or perceived, to argue against creationism is poisoning the well. As evolutionists, we don’t need to get our penises of knowledge stuck in our zippers of logical fallacies. Even an anti-semite can be right about some things. Hitler was right when he said, “It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.”
That Kent Hovind publicly recommends the Protocols of the Elders of Zion damages his intellectual credibility, since the Protocols are in fact a Tsarist forgery. Of course, the other things Hovind has said have already reduced his intellectual credibility to zero (or probably a negative number–or maybe the square root of a negative number). However, Hovind isn’t just making “scientific” arguments against the theory of evolution. He also makes moral arguments against “evolutionism”, including the claim that “evolutionism” is responsible for racism in general and Nazism in particular. To the extent that he can be credibly shown to be an anti-semite and a bigot, that reduces his moral credibility as well.
Naturally, these arguments only apply to Hovind himself. If another person advocates some of the same positions Hovind holds, it would be unfair to associate that person with other of Hovind’s positions which that person hasn’t in fact advocated. And, logically speaking, refuting one of Hovind’s positions doesn’t necessarily invalidate any of the others, except to the extent that the different positions are in fact logically related.
Of course, as far as I know Hovind doesn’t hold any positions which cannot and ought not be refuted, separately or together, except maybe that the Sun rises in the East (and in Hovind’s case, it would not surprise me to learn that he means that literally).
No flames from me this time, Lib. You’re right – I’m not trying to say we should use his anti-Semitism to argue against his creationist rhetoric. However, I think it is one more piece of ammunition to use when discussing Hovind with those who may think he’s a great guy and all that. It also might make some politicians stop and think for a minute before endorsing his crap.
Fair enough. Bartender, drinks all 'round! On me!
Agree. Don’t get into a “Ad hominem argument”. It would be like saying “Gould is a Marxist, and thus we can ignore punctuated equilibria.” (thanks http://www.TalkOrigins.com)
It’s better to keep the debate to Dr. Dino’s supposed “facts”.
But maybe he’ll lose a few followers by his own actions.
Libertarian wrote:
Oh, Lib, you have such a way with words! (And now I’m gonna be walkin’ funny for the rest of the day.)
Penises of knowledge?
So you’re saying creationists have really small dicks, too?
Perhaps their penises have resisted evolution.
<< Every government described in the Bible – including the Kingdom of Heaven – is a monarchy. >>
Just to back up a sec, this ain’t so.
According to the Bible text, the Israelites, after leaving Egypt, look to Moses for leadership. Moses can’t handle it alone, and sets up a panel of 70 elders to help with the administration of government. (It’s actually the concept of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, the world’s first management consultant.) Now, that ain’t monarchy; the power does not pass to Moses’ son. It is arguably a dictatorship (with Moses through God as dictator), but it ain’t a monarchy. To the contrary, Moses RESISTS the idea of being the sole authority; instead, he sets up an administrative committee.
After the Israelites conquer Palestine, they set up a confederation (for lack of better word) of the twelve tribes. There is no central leadership, government is local only. Moses warns the people (somewhere in Deuteronomy, I don’t have the text at work with me) not to set up a king, and if they do, to be sure to limit his powers. For several generations, they survive just fine as a loose confederation of tribes, headed by tribal elders, except when danger threatens. Then a Judge arises (Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and their ilk), chosen by God, to assume military leadership across tribal boundaries.
If you want to say that a monarchy is any hereditary system, then I suppose the tribal elders is “monarchy”, but they don’t take the title “king” and there seem to be a group of them rather than a single elder in charge of each tribe.
When the people clamour for a king, Samuel (the judge at the time) tells them that they’re out of their freakin’ minds to want a king, but they want to be like the other nations around them. So starts the Jewish monarchy which persists for around 400 years, and the Davidic line (from which the Messiah is/will be sprung).
When the kingdom is conquered by Babylon, around 580 BC, and then restored from exile, my recollection is that there is no king then, but a governor and a priesthood.
So there’s lots of Biblical eras of non-monarchy type governments. This is actually pretty remarkable; back in ancient times, almost EVERY government (mentioned in the Bible or not) was a monarchy – Athens being the notable exception.
In fact, ancient Hebrew does not have separate words for different types of government, nor ways to distinguish “emperor” from “king” from “ruler”.
Leave it to Dex to take a discussion from small penises to historical references in the Bible…
Dex wrote:
Huh. I’m sorry, I just hadn’t thought of it that way before. I’ve lived in the U.S. all my life, and I’ve never been exposed to any form of government that didn’t have real public elections. So to me, the distinctions between any forms of government that have an absolute ruler who was not elected and who cannot be voted out of office seem so minor that I don’t even notice them.
I guess I need a broader term than “monarchy” to describe this general form of government. What’s the right term here? Authoritarian? Non-democratic? Non-representational? Penis of rulership caught in the zipper of palace intrigue?