A fundamental fallacy of YEC epistemology
Below are excerpts from various statements I've made in discussions with young earth creationists all on the same point about this fundamental fallacy that lies at the core of their religious ideology, in the "Maury_and_Baty" and "coCBanned" discussion groups. The reason this point comes up all the time in such discussions is because of how this circular argument is embedded in young earth creationist ideology, so if you're engaged in discussions with young earth creationists and any sort of aspects of epistemology come up you're going to encounter young earth creationists using this fallacy in their argumentation. It's a conceptual flaw that is inherent to their belief system, a false premise that destroys their dogma.
- Todd Greene (8/30/2007)
Re: Personal invitation to Casey Head, Spring Pines church of Christ!
(Aug 16, 2007)
--- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #11582):
> Todd,
>
> In separate e-mail messages more recently, Casey has
> written, in relevant part:
>
>| (T)he only issue I would be willing to debate
>| is the days of creation... that is, if we
>| disagree on that...
>
>| It is therefore logical to me that the earth is
>| young, perhaps 6-10,000 years old, but I don't
>| know for sure.
>|
>| I am unwilling to debate science, as I am no
>| scientist. I am only willing to debate the Bible.
>
> It appears that Casey is not going to be taking up
> the issue for further discussion.
|[snip]
So let's think about this for a moment. Casey - like a lot of young
earth creationists - is basically saying, 'I don't care what the
real world evidence is, I'm going to believe whatever the Bible
says.'
Yes, we already knew that this is the real position of young earth
creationism today, and it's nice that some people such as Casey are
honest about it. But this is an irrational position, and it's
amazing to me that these guys don't realize this. If a Mormon made
this argument, or a Hindu, or a Moslem, or a anyone else, these guys
would tear them right up for making a circular and irrational
argument. These guys have to know that the argument of "It's okay to
ignore the real world evidence" is false and ridiculous (surely
they're not that unintelligent), yet when it comes to their own
position that's exactly what it is.
Re: Skip Francis on moon recession
(Jul 18, 2007)
[excerpt]
Rick's "belief" [that the earth has been around far longer than
10,000 years] is based on taking science seriously.
Skip's belief [young earth creationism] is based on a bias for his
RELIGIOUS dogma based on his interpretation of some statements made
in a RELIGIOUS book, and for DELIBERATELY IGNORING any and all
scientific facts that contradict his religious dogma.
Re: Another very simple easy question for some obtuse dogmatists
(Jun 21, 2007)
[excerpt]
I don't just up and believe something because someone else believes
it and tells me I ought to believe just like they do. That's just
silly. I expect them to back it up. If merely believing a thing made
it so, then we'd all have to be Mormons, and Hindus, and Moslems,
and thousands of other things, and believe in all kinds of gods and
goddesses merely because other people say we ought to believe in
them because they believe in them. Your belief, your faith, in
something IS NOT EVIDENCE. You saying that you believe something
"because the Bible says so" is still just a baseless circular
argument, which means its based on merely ASSUMING that it's so
without any evidence that it's so, which is the point of my
criticism because a circular argument does not substantiate
anything. You have to come up with some good EVIDENCE for this idea
of a God that you say you believe in, and ONLY THEN will you in any
