ARC Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
= 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
From the "[[Response to AronRa]]" series.

== Summary
I had high hopes for this video (see "[[Response to AronRa]]"). I was disappointed; the argument (first in a series of 15) mainly centers around issuing a series of attacks and insults against creationists, then stating that he is reaching out to people who may have been innocently duped by those lying, scamming, con-men creationists (literally).

The video opens by trying to express that science should win in any comparison with creationism because scientists all agree (and that science is based mainly on observable evidence). However very little is presented as a direct example of how science and creationism conflict, other than to compare creationism (directly) to "magic" i.e. to conveniently characterize it (or mis-chatacterize it) to support AronRa's argument by intimidation.

Even if we try to focus on the notion that science disagrees with creationism, this becomes merely an out for AronRa as he mentions it himself, giving a long list of creationist scientists and makes the point himself that creationism and evolution are not necessarily at odds. He essentially closes his main body of argument with statements such as "Science can say nothing about god" and we are thus left with no clear statement on what precisely is the first fundamental falsehood. I mean, can you iterate it for me? The first fundamental falsehood is... what? Christians are lying scammers?

== Polemical Value
Tier 4 argument; in general I won't be responding to trivially dismiss-able arguments in the future (ad hominem, argument by intimidation). But this was my first response and I felt I needed to write something!

Let's give AronRa a pass for this one though. The video is 12 years old, maybe one of his first. Maybe he just had to get it off his chest. Maybe he's mellowed out and improved his argument over the years. We'll try to go with some more recent videos next time.

== Video Commentary
This section was written first then I went back to write the summary.

=== False Appeal to Authority; Bandwagon Fallacy (0:30-)
My first impression of this video is that it relies on a false appeal to scientific authority over the authority of religion. We are given the impression that in areas where science and religion (creationism) directly contradict, one should go with science because it is based on exhaustive evidence to the exclusion of any other conclusion. The issue with this approach is that there is no evidence given in this video that Science and Religion (here, Creationism) are in direct contradiction, nor any examples of what those contradictions might be.

=== Ad Hominem; Straw Man Argument (1:30-)
Building a contrast between the average non-scientific American versus a consensus of 95% of scientists (0:30 to 1:00) and then implying that those scientists are somehow right is at once meaningless and misleading. There are plenty of times when 95% of scientists have been wrong.

A deeper problem with this argument occurs around 1:30 where AronRa issues the ad hominem argument that creationism relies on ignorance and that it is not honest research. This is an ad hominem argument because it is a statement that creationists are ignorant and dishonest. If this point were true, i.e. if this were to not be an ad hominem argument, we would need to see specific examples of the ignorance and dishonesty AronRa is refering to. Sadly, we do not. It is simply too easy to dismiss AronRa's arguments themselves as ignorant and dishonest; they are ignorant because no examples or reasoning are presented for his arguments in this video, thus he appears ignorant even of the common talking points surrounding this issue; it is dishonest because he continues to call creationism a scam and a con job; these statements imply that creationists are intentionally dishonest and set out to defraud people. Nothing could be further from the truth; most people desire to do good (please don't make me say "Kant", let's just assume it's a common philosophical theme) and while no one is perfect most creationists certainly approach the issue in good faith. Stating they are dishonest, scammers or running a con is dishonest because it mis-characterizes AronRa's debate opponents. In fact, it does so highly conveniently; AronRa thus gaining benefit from this dishonesty could then be accused of scamming people or attempting to con them. He is certainly aware of the issue as he brought it up; however we could also posit he is (full circle) highly ignorant even of his own words.

I won't normally explain out the massive number of issues surrounding ad hominem, and I'm actually surprised that this came up so early in the response to AronRa (first video, whodathunk) yet I am going to give him a pass on it for now because this particular video is 12 years old (2007 to 2019). However I do think it is in fact important to point this out and explain it -- even if only once.

Continuing, AronRa issues a straw man argument that there are only two kinds of creationists (1:42) -- professional creationists who "regularly and deliberately lie" to "promote their propaganda, and the second kind, the "innocently decieved followers" known as "sheep". I wonder which kind he believes I am?


=== Failure to State, Appeal to Pity, Argument by Intimidation (3:00)
At 3:00, AronRa states that he is in essence not interested in debating actual facts or talking points, but that he is appealing to the "sheep" -- those who are able to be "innocently deceived". I don't even know what to make of this one. He's basically saying that he doesn't have to justify what he is saying because he is targeting (ignorant) people who know less than he does. Failure to state? Avoiding the Issue? I suppose it is some form of appeal to pity; AronRa is asking us to root for these poor, deceived underdogs against the lying, deceiving con-men who believe in creationism. I don't know -- not buying this one.

This goes on for a while; by 3:28 he repeats that the creationists "know they are lying...(to..children)". Honestly, I shed a tear -- that one took balls. If this doesn't amount to an argument by intimidation I don't know what would.

==== Substantiation (3:15)
"Neither can be substantiated or tested in any way," -- there is a response to this, which I will engage in later if it's brought up as an actual argument (this is a reminder to me). This argument is repeated at about 8:20.

=== Based on a dozen foundational falsehoods (3:53)
One down? I agree with point 1, you don't have to give up a belief in God to believe in Evolution -- //or creationism.// This is something I will get into later when AronRa will inevitably bring it up as a central argument. In short I agree with this section.

=== Self-Contradition; Self-evidently false statements (6:25)
By ~6:25 AronRa has completely undermined his own argument by giving a list of several crationists who are also scientists (such as a Paleontologist). But then he goes a step to far and says that all of those people believed that "creationism (would still be) completely wrong".

Continuing to 6:48 where he shows a chart where most creationists or Christians can also be evolutionists. I am very confused; what's the point of this video again?

=== Argument by Laziness 7:30-
Frankly, AronRa's depiction of creation shows that he does not really understand what it states in the bible Sola Scriptura. He's providing a very convenient caricature of what most people assume it says, but he has gone to far and has portrayed the scene in a manner sufficient that we may say he has misrepresented what it says in the bible. We assume this was done unintentionally. Again, we give AronRa a pass on this, the video is 12 years old. If this turns out to be a regular occurrence with AronRa we may come back to revisit that, but until then let's consider this as just a starting point for debate. It is obviously (hopefully) not his final position.

=== Remainder (8:00-)
Not much left except "pure freakin' magic by definition". Maybe by AronRa's definition. Anyways.