3 ms·

> In fact, if you watch Kent Hovind, he opens every single video he makes with, "I believe that the Bible is true and scientifically accurate." If you're spend

by baddox 6y ago

> In fact, if you watch Kent Hovind, he opens every single video he makes with, "I believe that the Bible is true and scientifically accurate." If you're spending lots of effort making what appear to be good-faith arguments toward some conclusion, but that conclusion is in fact an axiom that you hold, then that's intellectually dishonest. If "Bible is true and scientifically accurate" is one of your axioms, then it's intellectually dishonest to provide some supposed piece of evidence that supports this claim (e.g. supposed missing links in the fossil record), because by definition 1) no evidence is necessary to support an axiomatic claim and 2) no evidence or explanation can possibly change your mind.

lisper 6y ago
The axiom is that the Bible is true. The conclusion is that evolution is false. The arguments are about how to reconcile the "fact" that evolution is false with the existence of data that appear at first glance to support its truth. Now, I am not going to defend Kent Hovind's intellectual honesty. I think he does have a not-so-hidden ulterior motive (tax evasion). But you cannot legitimately accuse him -- or any YEC that I've encountered -- of trying to paper over the fact that he assumes the truth of the Bible.
- baddox 6y ago
  > The axiom is that the Bible is true. The conclusion is that evolution is false. The arguments are about how to reconcile the "fact" that evolution is false with the existence of data that appear at first glance to support its truth. But there is no intellectually honest way to reconcile that factual claim except to reiterate that it is an axiom (or, if you like, a trivial corollary from the axiom that the Bible is true). The supposed existence of missing links is completely irrelevant, because even if those links weren't missing, his conclusion would be that evolution is false. Ancient flood myths are completely irrelevant, because even if such myths weren't widespread, his conclusion would be that evolution is false. To clarify, I'm not claiming that creationists conceal their beliefs about the Bible. I'm referring to intellectual dishonesty.

by baddox 6y ago

lisper 6y ago

The axiom is that the Bible is true. The conclusion is that evolution is false. The arguments are about how to reconcile the "fact" that evolution is false with the existence of data that appear at first glance to support its truth. Now, I am not going to defend Kent Hovind's intellectual honesty. I think he does have a not-so-hidden ulterior motive (tax evasion). But you cannot legitimately accuse him -- or any YEC that I've encountered -- of trying to paper over the fact that he assumes the truth of the Bible.

baddox 6y ago
> The axiom is that the Bible is true. The conclusion is that evolution is false. The arguments are about how to reconcile the "fact" that evolution is false with the existence of data that appear at first glance to support its truth. But there is no intellectually honest way to reconcile that factual claim except to reiterate that it is an axiom (or, if you like, a trivial corollary from the axiom that the Bible is true). The supposed existence of missing links is completely irrelevant, because even if those links weren't missing, his conclusion would be that evolution is false. Ancient flood myths are completely irrelevant, because even if such myths weren't widespread, his conclusion would be that evolution is false. To clarify, I'm not claiming that creationists conceal their beliefs about the Bible. I'm referring to intellectual dishonesty.