Amusing how...
... creationists shoot themselves in the foot - again and again and again.
Take, for instance, a look at this amusing attempt to rebut Mark Isaak's fine Index to Creationist Claims.
I will not attempt to go through their 'responses,' since that would be both boring and unproductive. If you have a streak of intellectual masochism, you can have a go yourself.
No, what I will call to the attention of the honoured reader is the distribution of their responses. Appearently the creationists feel most comfortable in the Philosophy and Theology section. The 'ethics' subsection is covered fully - bar one outdated point. The 'epistemology' subsection has a smattering of coverage with a curious paucity of coverage in the section devoted to the scientific method.
The Biology section, which forms by far the bulk of Isaak's index, has a mere 15 replies (by my guesstimate the section covers more than 150 criticisms of creationism). Paleontology is even more thinly covered, with only 7 responses to (again my guestimate) about 100 points. The rest of the index is untouched.
In fairness to the creationists, this may simply reflect a tendency to start from the top (although the paucity of coverage of the scientific method is telling even then), but for the rest of us, it serves as a humorous commentary on the nature and goals of the creationist movement.
Take, for instance, a look at this amusing attempt to rebut Mark Isaak's fine Index to Creationist Claims.
I will not attempt to go through their 'responses,' since that would be both boring and unproductive. If you have a streak of intellectual masochism, you can have a go yourself.
No, what I will call to the attention of the honoured reader is the distribution of their responses. Appearently the creationists feel most comfortable in the Philosophy and Theology section. The 'ethics' subsection is covered fully - bar one outdated point. The 'epistemology' subsection has a smattering of coverage with a curious paucity of coverage in the section devoted to the scientific method.
The Biology section, which forms by far the bulk of Isaak's index, has a mere 15 replies (by my guesstimate the section covers more than 150 criticisms of creationism). Paleontology is even more thinly covered, with only 7 responses to (again my guestimate) about 100 points. The rest of the index is untouched.
In fairness to the creationists, this may simply reflect a tendency to start from the top (although the paucity of coverage of the scientific method is telling even then), but for the rest of us, it serves as a humorous commentary on the nature and goals of the creationist movement.
posted by JS at 21:11
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home