I thought I would show an excerpt from a letter I have compossed in reply to a friend.
This all goes back to about six months ago when he asked me what I thought about the creator book.
I told him I thought it was "junk".
Bad move.
Anyway he told several people i was being critical of the society and wrote me a long letter which I never replied to.
I recently thought my lack of a reply may indicate to him that he had proved me wrong so I have decided to write back.
Please let me know if you think what I have written is reasonable.
Dear ******,
I am writing in response to your letter of 19 April 2001.
I know it is a long time in coming but I had not intended to write back after our discussion of the matter, but I have lately felt that in not replying it leaves several points unanswered.
I what you to understand why I raised the points I did and wanted you to consider carefully the evidence.
I hope you appreciate my frankness in writing this letter as I am honestly concerned about various issues and their effect on our lives.
It would be too cumbersome to discuss all points raised in your letter so I am hoping only a few will be sufficient to show when I am coming from.
My purpose is not to weaken anyone's faith but to examine carefully some important issues.
If I am wrong I will stand corrected if the relevant information is provided.
One of the main issues raised was over my attitude toward a number of the societies publications mainly the “creator book” .
So I will mostly deal with why I felt the way I did.
As you know I have read quite a number of books on scientific subjects many dealing with the issue of evolution , some I have read several times.
Therefore I am aware of some of the complexities of the issues involved and what is believed by many scientists and researchers.
One of the problems that many scientists have with creationists and other similar beliefs is that they often employ pseudoscience in their publications.
What is pseudoscience? Well basically anyone that does not apply “proper” methodology to their work and convictions is a pseudoscientist.
Although you could debate what exactly makes proper methodology there are certain points that evidently are bad and will lead to wrong conclusions. Other methods work in practise and can be considered good methodology.
For example I am writing this on a computer , which has been designed and made by people who we class as scientists , obviously the methods involved in designing working computers are correct as computers work and exist.
It would be wise then to avoid methods that could lead to being accused of being pseudoscientists.
So what things will lead to wrong conclusions and misunderstanding?
Modern science is based on empirical evidence .You must demonstrate something to be correct by showing evidence. It is not enough just to believe something is true or will work only by testing you ideas will you know of their true worth.
Apart from just getting things wrong it is possible in trying to prove a point to make several errors that can lead to a wrong conclusion or even turn your work into propaganda. Such as when you present only your own viewpoint without considering or even mentioning that there are others.
This is especially true when you are considering written evidences or proofs and you are writing on a subject in which you are not familiar or you are seeking to establish predetermined ideas.
Some errors of reasoning that lead to wrong conclusions are;
1. The straw man. This is where you attempt to prove a certain view point is wrong but misrepresent the viewpoint you believe is in error and in fact end up criticising a viewpoint that does not exist (the straw man) in place of the real issue.
2. Circular reasoning. An unproven premise is used as a starting point onto which all other arguments are based.
3. Analogy and False analogy. Where an analogy is used to prove rather than illustrate a point. An analogy where some things are similar but not of the kind needed to demonstrate arguments advanced.
4. False dilemma Where you are given a choice between two opposing viewpoints when in reality there are more to be considered.
5. Red herring. Bringing a point in that is not relevant to the argument and only serves to divert the readers attention.
6. Ad hominem .Which is an attack on the person and not the argument.
7. Provincialism. Seeing things from only within a certain group of peoples viewpoint and not considering what it is like to look in from the outside.
8. Generalisation and misuse of deductive reasoning. Making broad or general conclusions using only incidental facts and building on them in order to make a general analysis or unwarranted conclusions.
It worried me that right from the start of the creator book some of these methods were used. P.g. 8 p. 3 “Scientific theories may try to explain how? But the key questions centre on why?”
This is Red herring and a provincialism as the book is to try to explain “how?” and the idea of “why?” is almost unique to believers in God.
P.g 9 p. 1 states “Yet we must admit that the reason many reject the existence of a creator is that they do not want to believe.” Generalisation is at work along with Ad hominem attack on unbelievers who apparently do not want to believe .But on what evidence is this said?
None is given. P.g. 10 p 3 . Talking of the features of galaxies it says “Some are so long and wide that they resemble great walls. This may surprise many how think that our universe created itself in a chance cosmic explosion.” Straw man. No scientists ( None that I know of) believe the universe was created in a chance cosmic explosion. A cosmic expansion yes .I can see how the writer could get confused ( as it is called the Big bang ) but this could only be if he has made just a cursory reading of the relevant scientific material.
P.g. 13 p 1 Talking of the expansion of the universe “This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned.” Misuse of deductive reasoning. It just tells us what is needed because of the apparent “fine tuning” it doesn't explain any evidence to show why this must be the case. Nor does it present scientific views on how this could happen only due to the forces of nature.
Also the “second law of thermodynamics” is mentioned on pg.24-25.
The book makes the statement “...our existence is contrary to this recognised law.”
A quick read about the second law of thermodynamics in a science book will dispel that notion. To put it bluntly , that statement is an error.
In fact the whole explanation given of how this “law” works is in error.
I know this and I am not a scientist neither do I write for an organisation that claims to be Gods spokes man . It just makes me wonder how much research has actually been done?
I shan’t go on as it just becomes repetitive.
If you were writing a book on which you believed peoples lives depend I believe you would want to make sure that the information you present is correct to the best of your knowledge, that you did not use invalid methods of reasoning and did not misquote important sources. You would not want to come to solid conclusions without solid evidence.
Although you may start with an idea that you believe might be true , if evidence came to the for that contradicted this you should be willing to give up your previous view.
Otherwise it could lead to you reaching erroneous conclusions and your readers being mislead. A noteworthy statement is found on pg. 9 of the creation book, “.We invite all who have an open mind to consider this subject. The book Belief in God and Intellectual Honesty notes that one who possesses “intellectual honesty“ is characterised by a readiness to scrutinize what one believes to be true“ and “to pay sufficient attention to other evidence available.””
We would, if honestly considering this information what to apply that equally to ourselves not just others.
Does the creation book do this?
Since witnesses can be classed as people who believes in a creator and that book that is designed to help them, does it do what it tells us is intellectually honest and “scrutinize what one believes to be true“ and “ pay sufficient attention to other evidence“?
In regard to the above when rereading the creator book in order to study for the group study arrangement I was this time surprised at some of the things I read.
Interestingly I note that at the back of the book there are no sources given in order to checkout the quotes they have used and the context they are found in. Compare this to the earlier book “How did life get here ? By evolution or by creation?”
You will notice that there is a list of references for quotes found at the back. Why has this been dropped in the newer book? This eliminates a valuable tool for checking the quotes in the new book. Why would we want to do so? Surly we can trust the writers to have been rigorous in their research. Well you may be surprised to read the list of misquotes ( from life how did it get here?..)enclosed with my letter, feel free to check them at a library or bookshop.( these are from JanH website)
I must add that these particular set of quotes are not the result of my own research but of another person.
There is no easy way of checking the quotes in the Creator book as I said there are no references given. But I did note some ideas that seamed to misrepresent the general scientific view , a view that is backed up with evidence.
I know this and I am not a scientist neither do I write for an organisation that claims to be Gods spokes man . It just makes me wonder how much research has actually been done?
There are others I could note , but it would turn this letter into a rather long read.
In your letter the point was raised should I be critical of the society...
This is were I must end the excerpt as It gets more personnal and onto another subject.
Also note in the examples of bad reasoning I was helped by In search of Christian freedom br R.Franz pg.436 obviously I'm not letting my friend know that as I want him to read it so I put it in my own words.