Thursday, September 20, 2007

Creationists and Deniers-- Ebony and Ivory

So anytime I bring up Creationists in a comment about Deniers, or Deniers in a post about Creationists, the opposite party always gets PISSED. At the Dembski Affair on Monday, Secret Agent Man was highly offended that I compared the tactics of ID Creationists to Deniers. When a Denier was drawn to a post I made on Creationism, he/she didnt understand why I treat Creationists/Deniers as the same group of people.

The connection is obvious to everyone... except Creationists and Deniers.

For instance, in the Sep/Oct issue of Skeptical Inquirer, the cover story is HIV Denialism (they mention Tara and Chris Noble and Brian Foley!). How many of these statements could be said for Creationists?

Go straight to politics-- the science will support you later
Go straight to the public-- theyll buy your crap
Dont support your own claims-- just point out the flaws in the prevailing scientific consensus, make up flaws as you see fit
Fr*me yourself as a 'rebel' and a 'dissident'-- You are brave to take on The Man
Dont understand the science you are against
Dont have a degree in the field you are against
Scientists are dumb
Scientists are in it for the money
When scientists finally address you, use THAT as evidence you are RIGHT
Dont ever change you mind. Ever.
For examples, look at all this crap Horowitz pulled in our 'debate', and compare it to Dembskis hiding places. Though I would add magical thinking (viruses, chemistry, everything is magic).

Skeptical Inquirer quotes a physician that finally got fed up with the Denier he was 'debating':
What is taking place on this forum is a farce, not a debate... Good scientists are meant to accept new evidence and incorporate this into their hypotheses.The denialist approach is to ignore new evidence that is contradictory to their predetermined stance. After comprehensive rebuttal of any point of view, the denialist tactic is to quickly switch to a different topic. Then later, when no-one is looking, they can switch back to the original theme, hoping no-one will realise that these points were completely discredited on an earlier occasion.
HMMMM! WHO does that sound like? It sounds SO familiar...


Chris Noble said...

Ain't it funny that Creationists hate being compared with HIV deniers and HIV deniers hate being compared with Creationists!

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Especially when you start finding the HIV denying creationists.

Skeptico said...

Re: After comprehensive rebuttal of any point of view, the denialist tactic is to quickly switch to a different topic. Then later....

That sounds like virtually all woos.

Gerald said...

If the new issue of Skeptical Inquirer has an article about HIV deniers I can't wait till it comes in the mail.

Pseudo scientists/historians tend to always use the same tactics. Probably because they have to since they don't have the evidence to back up their claims. Michael Shermer, in his book Why People Believe Weird Things outlines the tactics used by pseudo science groups.

1. They concentrate on their opponents weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position.
2. They exploit errors made by scholars and imply since some of their conclusions may have been wrong, they all are.
3. They make use out of context quotes. One example is the Darwin and the eye quote often used by anti evolutionists.
4. The mistake honest debate over the details in a particular field as a sign of weakness of the entire field.
5. They focus on the unknown and ignore what is known.

Les Lane said...


1- begin with rigid preconceptions

2- usually have a weak (to nonexistent) science background

3- rationalize rather than analyze

4- don't consult experts (may be unable to distinguish experts from quacks)

Creationists and IDiots are classic deniers

Reginal Selkirk said...

ID fallout at Baylor

The associate producer of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Mark Mathis arrived on campus Thursday morning with a camera crew in a last effort to speak to President John Lilley.
"It seems odd to me that Baylor, which is a Christian university, is uncomfortable with a professor who is doing a research sympathetic to intelligent design," Mathis said.

But I thought ID didn't have anything to do with religion?

dochocson said...


Don't ask that over at UD, or they'll unleash a storm of tardness that will make your head spin.