7. Ad Hominem

This next post seems especially appropriate with the debates getting a little personal and offensive of late. The use of Ad Hominem arguments are much too prevalent nowadays, and more often than not, people fail to realize this.

Ad Hominem literally means “to the man”, and it is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

Remember, someone with wrong motives just might have the right answer, so make sure you’re debating the person’s argument/answer and not his character. Attacking someone as a Creationist or an Evolutionist is just a way of distracting attention from a valid argument.

Well, sometimes.

You see? There are little exceptions to every rule, if you’ll excuse my quoting Esme Cullen ;)

It’s not unfair or Ad Hominem to point out bias in an argument. If someone insists that cracking one’s knuckles isn’t unhealthy, then it is not necessarily fallacious or wrong to point out that he cracks his knuckles constantly. However, assuming that just because he is biased means that he is wrong, that IS a fallacy.

You see, we are all guilty of this at some point or another. Christians are reluctant to give credit to evidence that seems to contradict Bible passages, and sometimes use Ad Hominem or other fallacies to distract from their opponent’s argument. Evolutionists are reluctant to give credit to evidence that seems to suggest that natural selection doesn’t do all Darwin claimed.

We all have a tendency to believe what we want to believe, and Ad Hominem is a great crutch for us when we’re doing that. For example, a business owner might see a study that claims facts that could be detrimental to his company. He might attack the authors of the study, claiming that they are just out to get businessmen and cannot be trusted. Some other zealots might claim that the businessman knew what he was doing was wrong, and that he did it anyway just because the world of business is out to get people.

Ad Hominem arguments are everywhere, we need to watch out for them. This isn’t really a fallacy that you should be aware of in others, it’s more one that you should be aware of in yourself. When our beliefs are challenged, it is a natural reaction to push back and defend our beliefs. That’s fine, but only if it’s done in a classy, fair way.

Also remember that exposing bias is not Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem occurs only when you point out something about your opponent’s character for the sole purpose of distraction from his argument.
Recognize and acknowledge bias, get beyond it, and evaluate the evidence fairly. That is the only way to get anywhere in a debate.

6: Logic: Selective Use of Evidence.

This is a personal favorite, and will likely rouse many responses from readers, which is always a good thing in my opinion. Let's all think together!

There is a lot of evidence out there, so every theory (whether true or false) will have something to support it, or it wouldn't even be theory. This is something we really must keep in mind when accepting scattered evidence and assuming that all the other evidence goes along with it. This is sometimes, in fact, usually, not true.

It's very important to debate, especially about Evolution, because the two sides are constantly procuring new information either to support their own theory, or disprove his opponent's. Neither side should be allowed to ignore evidence because it's convenient. Creationists and Evolutionists are both guilty of this. Evolutionists need to stop dismissing valid claims, and Creationists need to stop ignoring the hard questions. If it's the truth, what have you got to be afraid of?

Museums like to draw attention to the fossils that could be interpreted as a transitional stage. Museums also like to ignore and not inform its visitors of the greater mass of contradictory evidence and the fact that no transitional fossils haev been found for many major animal groups appearing in teh Cambrian explosion.

One museum in San Franciso has an exhibit called the "Hard Fact Wall". They went so far as to actually put out imaginary common ancestors, thus leading the pubilc to believe the ancestors had actually been found.

When this is pointed out to people, they are astonished and appalled that the museum would do such a thing. The thing is, the museum staff aren't maliciously lying to the visitors, they're just trying too hard to "help" the public come to what they see as the right conclusion.

Think about Piltdown man. Everyone was shocked when the monkey-human skull was procured. It was very convincing, compelling evidence, and cold hard fact.

Until it was proven to be a hoax.

Don't be so impressed at all the "evidence" or take things at face value. What you see in museums, read in textbooks, and hear from some scientists took a lot of biased interpreting to get to. Be careful.

Ask yourself: "Does fossil evidence as a whole tend to confirm Darwin's theory?"

Look closely. Don't just Google "evolution fossils" or go to a museum, see some convincing-looking skeletons and decide it must be true. Really look, deep, deep, deeper. Tear apart the evidence, find the truth. I'm not necessarily trying to tell you that Evolution is false, I'm just saying, a little healthy skepticisim never hurt anyone.

Especially with all the selective use of evidence going around.

Until next time,


P.S. Don't forget about Follower Say...coming up on September 26! The more people the better! So far there are three people participating. Let's take this event to a whole 'nother level, y'all! To "sign up", just leave a comment or email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com. Thanks!

Unrelated: Word Inflation: Is "Love" Officially Meaningless?

The word "love" has become so over-used lately, that it really means nothing at all. My friend Ellie and I call this over-use "word inflation." When there gets to be a lot of money circulating in the economy, it doesn't seem to matter as much to people, and they spend it all the time. That's inflation. So, word inflation is, guess what? Yup. When people use a word so much that it doesn't really even mean anything anymore.

That's what's happening to "love." The word pretty much means nothing now. Nothing. Seriously. Nowadays, "love" might mean anything from, "Thanks" to "I really want part of that cookie.” In birthday cards, thank you notes, and just notes people pass each other (well, we girls at least) the words "I love you" are pretty much always there.

But do they really mean it?

I'm sure some people do, but still, the whole idea of love has been just totally twisted and made to seem so insignificant. Love is a big deal, y'all! It's not a word to be squandered on Valentine's Day cards to people you met last week! It's not just something you shout at your mom as you're leaving the house. Love is a gift, and by using the word so often and so carelessly, it's completely lost its meaning.

Of course, there are different types of love. You can obviously love someone as a friend and not want to marry them! But still, we should be careful the way we use such a strong word as "love." Do you really? Or are you just saying that? Be honest with people. Be honest with yourself.

Attention All Loquacious Followers

On Saturday September 26th there is going to be a special eddition of Carpe Noctem: "Followers Say..." You will be granted access to posting on Carpe Noctem from midnight on the 25, to 11:59pm on the 26. You will be allowed to post up to three posts on any of the following topics. You may pick up to three topics, and post up to three times total.

I know my awesome followers have lots to say on lots of issues, and it's difficult to fully explain your point just through commenting.

Topics:
1. "I believe/disbelieve Evolution because..."
2. "I believe/disbelieve in God because..."
3. "My oppinion on our president is..."
4. "I am a republican/democrat because..."
5. "My view on political-correctness is..."
6. "What I think God meant in Genesis is..."
7. "I think global warming..."
8. An in-depth critique or response to any of my previous posts.
9. An idea of your own. (Please email me your idea ahead of time just so I'll know.)

"Rules":
-You can chose 1-3 topics from the above list.
-If you have another topic you would like to discuss, please shoot me an email ahead of time just so I'll know.
-You can post up to 3 times during the 12 hour period.
-Profanity is discouraged, but if that's the only way you can think to express yourself, go right ahead. Hopefully, though, we're all articulate enough to avoid that whenever possible.
-Preferrably, you must be a follower of Carpe Noctem to participate, but you don't *have* to be. I'd appreciate it, though :)

Preferred formatting of your post(s):
-Please put your name and the title of your post in the title.
-Please state which idea you chose at the beginning of your post.
-Please address one idea per post. (Don't address all the possible ideas in a single post.)

This is an extremely laid-back kind of thing. I'm not going to remove part or all of your post because it offends me. Even if it does, this is your time to share, not mine.

If you or someone you know would like to participate in Followers Say...email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com and I'll send you the link to join Carpe Noctem for the day of September 26. Hope you decide to join!

5: Owning the Microphone (Inherit the Wind)

We're probably all familiar with the famous Scopes Trial, but most people know the "story" from the play Inherit the Wind, which was made into a movie in 1930. Unfortunately, that movie broadcasted a stereotype of Christians and Evolutionists that is not always accurate. Whenever anyone speaks out either for Creationism or Evolutionism, but especially Creationism, their words are placed in the context of Inherit the Wind. Whether you know it or not, you're playing a character in the play, and the casting has already been done. But which part do you play? The idiot, or the intelligent one?

Briefly, let's go over the story of the play. It centers around a handsome young teacher of science named Bert Cates. He's a charming and wonderful man and teacher, but he's jailed for violating the Tennessee state law by teaching Evolution. Bert is also in love with the wonderful Rachel Brown, the daughter of an influential town minister, Reverend Jeremiah Brown.

Sorry about all the names, here's a little chart to help you with them:

Defense/Evolutionists:
1. Bert Cates
2. Henry Drummond

Prosecution/Christians:
1. Matthew Brady
2. Reverend Brown

Reverend Brown is, in the words of Phillip Johnson, "a vicious bigot with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, whose practice of Christian ministry seems to be limited to cursing people like Bert and threatening them with damnation."

Rachel is a slightly spineless girl who loves Bert, but urges him to stop teaching Evolution to avoid making trouble for himself in the small Tennessee town full of religious prejudices.

Bert's trial because a media field day when a lawyer named Matthew Brady offers to be the prosecutor. Brady, a former presidential candidate, is a huge antievolutionist. He gets a hero's welcome from the town, as a clever and sarcastic journalist named Hornbeck comes into the picture. He gets lots of opportunities to exercise his lovely sarcasm as the ignorant townspeople do weird things such as break into singing "Give Me That Old-Time Religion".

Prosecution lawyer Brady makes phony-sounding speeches and eats all the time like a glutton, showing himself to be an arrogant old fool. He also gets poor Rachel to divulge Bert's secrets, planning to use her as a prosecution witness against Bert, whom she is now engaged to.

It is soon announced that the famous Henry Drummond is coming to be Bert's defense attorney. Drummond is the typical viewer favorite, the fearless advocate fighting for justice despite the hopeless odds.

From the moment the trial begins, the townspeople show their ignorance and hate for anything unreligious through loud comments from the audience, which defense lawyer Drummond counters with witticism. Brady tries to score points for himself, but his efforts backfire every time.

The rolls of the play/movie couldn't be clearer: all virtue, humor, and intillegence are on the side of Bert and Drummond, and all malice and foolishness are on the side of Brady and Reverend Brown.

Despite the fact that the defense is intelligent and virtuous, their legal position is pretty impossible. Bert admits teaching Evolution, which is illegal in the town. Brady proves the point of Bert's guiltiness further by unnecessarily calling poor Rachel to the stand, and having her admit all of Bert's thoughts that he so kindly shared with her. Bert then shows his character to be even more impeccable by forbidding Drummond to upset Rachel with cross ex.

After some interesting back-and-forth efforts from both parties, Drummond always being the intelligent and descent one, Brady decides to take the witness stand himself, sure that he can stand up under Drummond's cross ex and defeat the unbeliever.

Drummond skillfully takes advantage of Brady's arrogance. He lulls him into a clever false sense of security with some easy and irrelevant questions, then stuns him by pointing out that the biblical patriarchs did their "begetting" by sexual intercourse.

Apparently, Brady had never considered that embarrassing but undeniable fact, and he blurts out that the Bible calls sex "original sin". The point being is that Christians are party poopers and sticks who want to abolish sex. (Very not true by the way...lol :P)

Drummond shows his genius further throughout the cross ex, and eventually has Brady so confused and nonsensical that even his supports mock him. The moral victory goes to Drummond and Bert, the defense.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the legal side of the trial, so the jury still finds Bert guilty. Bert also refuses bribes to keep quiet about Evolution, instead vowing to continue to speak up for truth and freedom.

Brady tries to redeem himself with a final speech, but is so upset by his own incoherent rant that he has a stroke and dies on the spot.

Rachel tells Bert that she will start thinking for herself, which implies that she will believe with Bert in Evolution instead of following her father's way of thinking.

The two lovers decide to leave the prejudiced little town and get married.

As the play ends, Drummond stands alone in the courtroom, reflecting on the day. He picks up a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species and a copy of the Bible. He balances them in his hands, one book in each hand, as if he were a scale. Finally, he half smiles, shrugs, and puts the two books together in his briefcase.

Symbolically speaking, this tells us that the Bible and Darwin and balance each other--that is if we allow Drummond to do the balancing. This is roughly how people claim to be both Evolutionists and Creationists.

And that's how the play Inherit the Wind goes.

However, the actual Scopes Trial was very different.

The real trial was not a serious criminal offense, but a symbolic confrontation engineered to put the down of Dayton, TN on the map. No joke. That's what it was.

The Tennessee legislature funded a new science education program, and to assure people that science wouldn't be used to discredit religion, a clause was added to the bill forbidding the teaching of Evolution. They also predicted that the law would not be enforced.

The American Civil Liberties Union wanted to test this, though, so they set up the Scopes Trial.

That's basically all it was. There was never any danger of the defendant going to jail, nothing like that.

Honestly, though, the actual trial barely matters compared with the impact the play had.

Inherit the Wind likes to portray life a lot like the story of Cinderella. Once upon a time, there were a bunch of mean Christians who just liked to oppress people and prevent people from thinking, a lot like the stepmothers and stepsisters in Cinderella. Freedom from this comes through Darwin/the Fairy Godmother. Now that the people/Cinderella are free, they are not going to give the Christians/stepmother any more opportunities to enslave them/her.

Here's the story told another way, directly from Phillip Johnson:

"That memory has stayed with me, and shows that there may be more than one way to interpret the play. Let me retell the story with just a tad of artistic license.

"A brilliant young teacher develops a following because he has exciting ideas that open up a new way of life. His friends and students love him, but the ruling elders of his community hate the very thought of him. These elders are themselves cruel hypocrites who pile up burdens on the people and do not lift a finger to help them. The elders rule the peopel by fear and are themselves ruled by fear. They substitute dogmas and empty rituals for the true teaching they once knew, which commands truth and love as its frist principles.

"The elders want to destroy the teacher who threatens their control over the people, but his behavior and character are so exemplary that they can find no fault to justify condemning him. They plan to trap him by convincing one of his closest friends to betray him. Eventually they are able to arrange a rigged legal proceeding and get a guilty verdict. Their victory is empty, however. The teacher wins even when he apparently loses, and he sums up his teaching in these words: 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.' "

That sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? No one is saying that Bert Cates is Jesus, but it does give you something to think about. The seemingly antibiblical play achieves its moral effect by borrowing themes from the Bible.

Inherit the Wind is truer than its authors knew. There is nothing really wrong with the story, either. It's just risky when you have to cast the rolls.

Here's where Owning the Microphone comes in. In the play, as the jury comes in to give the verdict, a character called "Radio Man" is introduced. He talks into his little microphone which broadcasts onto the radio. Radio Man relates everything that happens in the courtroom for the world to listen to. There is only one microphone, and the one wielding it controls what the people hear and therefore believe.

This is why the actual Scopes trial hardly matters; the writers of Inherit the Wind owned the mic.

Today, when creation-evolution conflicts arise, whoever is holding the media microphone casts the roles of hero and villain. What this has meant for a while now is that the Darwinists--who currently hold the legal and political power--appear before the microphone as Bert and Drummond, while the defenders of creation are cast the role of Brady the pompous fool and Brown the despicable bigot.

You see, no matter what actually happens in real life, the story will be told by whoever holds the microphone. It's pretty much impossible because of this to get newspapers to admit that there *ARE* scientific problems with Darwinian Evolution that are independent of what anyone thinks about the Bible. Even if the interviewer really "gets it" during an interview, 90% of the time by the time the article gets checked over by the editors, it comes out with the same formula as always: Christians are trying to substitute Genesis for the science textbook.

That's honestly not the case, however, but until someone a little less biased gets a hold of the microphone, that's how the story will be portrayed. It's kind of an uphill battle because the mic-holding Darwinists can portray their opponents are religious dogmatics regardless of what the opponent is actually saying.

If people try to object to teaching philosophical doctrine as scientific fact, the mic-holders say that they are attempting to stop students from learning.

If people try to tell the other side of the story and bring out evidence that textbooks ignore, the mic-holders accuse them of trying to insert religion into science curriculum, therefore violating the Constitution.

The Rule of the Microphone: "Heads we win, tails you lose."

It's really hard to make any scientific, moral, or political progress playing by those standards and rules, but there is a way to do it.

Step One: Learn to Detect Crap.

Beginning August 15, I'm going to show you how. Using logic, let's turn up our "Baloney Detectors".

Another Apology

Today was a little crazy. Some people came over to ask my mom about a job, and we had to take my dog to the vet. I usually don't do this kind of thing, so please understand. I'm really sorry! I will *make* time tomorrow to post on Owning the Microphone. Thank you so much for being patient!

Apology

I apologize for the delay in posting. I will be posting the next segment in the series, Owning the Microphone, tomorrow. Thanks for understanding!