From Wiki-How
I found this Wiki-How site, apparently a guide for life which can be democratically edited much like Wikipedia. It has several guides on how to effectively argue a position, and one of the ones that I like best is the guide to defending Christian Creationism based on Genesis against Evolutionism. Being editable, this article has a few points that look to me like it may have been sabotaged. Or it may have been sincerely edited by a creationist who doesn’t want the readers to look too foolish.
- It is helpful to know that while many examples of microevolution (i.e., changes to size, shape, color or other features within a species) have been observed. It is not true that scientists have not observed examples of macro-evolution (i.e., evolution above the species level). Therefore using this argument against evolutionists would be a fallacy, although TalkOrigins.org has many examples of Macro evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
- Rather than argue over evidence that is difficult to disprove / disavow, it would be much more persuasive to argue against the philosophical underpinnings of science. Unfortunately, even this avenue can backfire, as most of the philosophical attacks against modernity work as well against theology / theism.
- Remember that there is actual scientific evidence of evolution, whereas you are going by a fictional book written by humans
It seems to me that whoever has added these edits is interested in leading the creationist on a dangerous path towards a true understanding of evolution. In the hopes of not appearing to be a fool, whoever follows the advice of this “Wiki-How” will instead learn enough about evolution to actually, finally accept its explanatory power.
(Crossposted at Tangled Up In Blue Guy)
[...] (Crossposted at Clashing Culture) evolution creation science Tell the World These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
I think the author of these edits probably falls into the camp of sincere creationist. I say that with a caveat. He is probably interested in teaching readers to better understand evolution, but could be insincere about his aims to ‘understand’ the other side. My sense is this information is presented with the goal of forming rhetorical devices to argue against evolution. This sort of resource reminds me of my high school debate team – the best debaters ‘won’ by fully understanding the opponents’ positions such that they could imbue in the judges perceptions of weakness by their competitors.
If the American public are judging the evolution creation ‘debate,’ evolution is losing because of rhetorical strength. Do we need framing a la Nisbet to direct the topic? I think it runs deeper than that. Unfortunately, the conversation has to be structured differently – away from a debate.
But I don’t see that happening any time soon.