Questionable Motives

November 12, 2009

Cherry-picking

moonOver at the Neurologica blog is an article about the latest photographic evidence that debunks the moon hoax conspiracy and describes how the tracks and abandoned equipment newly photographed is evidence that is right where we thought it should be if the moon landings had actually occurred. One might be tempted to think that the truth of the moon landings was a no-brainer, but about 25% of people surveyed were skeptical that the whole thing was staged! The story reminded me strongly of the ID/creationist response to multi-disciplined evidence for evolution, which is right where it ought to be if evolution were true. What struck me is how similar remains the thinking of those who wish to deny… that no matter what evidence is provided, conspiracy theories are an exercise in cherry picking evidence that can be made to seem anomalous or sinister, without being able to formulate a coherent explanation or account for all evidence. I think the same kind of conspiracy thinking empowers CAM, anti-vaccination, magic, occult, and witchcraft, not to mention all mainstream religious belief in god. The cherry-picked evidence selected by such a thinker only bolsters the original claim and any and all counter-evidence is simply discarded by this slight-of-brain trick.

Advertisements

11 Comments »

  1. I think it is fascinating that moon landing deniers use science to “prove” their beliefs the same way Darwinists do. They ignore evidence that contradicts their theory and twit evidence they feel can help them look credible.

    Even in the face of visual evidence of the landings or first hand eyewitness testimony by the astronauts those moon landing deniers will continue to deny the event ever happened, much like creation deniers will ignore eye witness testimony and scientific evidence in order to continue their beliefs. Darwinists are by far the most faithful cherry pickers I have ever encountered.

    Comment by mcoville — November 12, 2009 @ 2:05 pm | Reply

    • And what evidence might that be against evolution?

      By the way, the term ‘Darwinists’ is a dead giveaway that one has already framed the theory in a negative light to suit a creationist ‘point of view’ rather than an evidence based approach.

      Comment by tildeb — November 12, 2009 @ 2:22 pm | Reply

  2. I am talking about evidence against evolution, evolution is a scientific principle that has been observed.

    Darwinists are those that believe in Darwinian evolution as described by Charles Darwin in his novel. It is a term penned by Darwin’s closest friend Thomas Huxley, and one of his biggest endorsers Richard Dawkins.

    Does your use of the term “creationist” now show that you have framed the theory (of evolution by common decent) in a positive light to suit your Darwinist point of view rather than an evidence based approach?

    Comment by mcoville — November 12, 2009 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

    • sorry, brain was moving faster than my fingers. I meant to say that I am NOT talking about evidence against evolution, I believe that there is sufficient evidence that evolution happens.

      Comment by mcoville — November 12, 2009 @ 4:21 pm | Reply

      • So what scientific evidence is being ignored by scientists to deny the hypothesis of creation?

        Comment by tildeb — November 12, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

  3. And that evidence against evolution is…?

    One ‘believes’ in the theory of evolution in the same way one ‘believes’ in the theory of gravity, germ theory, and atomic theory. These theories are not principles; they are so fully informed by evidence that they are considered ‘facts’, and more importantly, continue to work at a very high degree of probability of accuracy to reliably inform our technologies and medicines. Those who work with these ‘facts’ are not Darwinists, Newtonians, Kochists, and Daltonians. They are scientists. That is the correct term or, if you prefer, the more accurate one.

    I favour the evidence-based approach for testing what’s probably true, probably correct, probably accurate. I use the term ‘creationists’ because these people assume that there is a likely possibility that some supernatural entity outside of these facts went Poof! and caused the physical universe. To inform this remarkable hypothesis, these people must rely on untestable, unfalsifiable revelation, assertion, and assumption as evidence for their belief. Maybe you are different. Maybe you have any evidence for creationism – evidence that can be tested and falsified. If so, then please turn the sciences of biology, physics, and chemistry on their heads with this new information. The world of science awaits your claims with breathless anticipation…

    Comment by tildeb — November 12, 2009 @ 4:08 pm | Reply

  4. you assume that the supernatural entity is outside of scientific testing. You maintain that assumption by ignoring evidence to the contrary. When ever evidence is presented it is ridiculed and dismissed if it does not fit your idea of a theory. If you really want to be open minded about this subject there are scientists, that know a lot more about it than I do, that can answer your questions. David Berlinski is a good one to start with.

    Comment by mcoville — November 12, 2009 @ 4:30 pm | Reply

    • I don’t assume that the supernatural entity is outside of scientific testing. I assume there is no supernatural entity unless and until there is evidence. I assume mushrooms are not intergalactic investigators sent to spy on carrots, either. There are an untold number of assumptions both you and I make because there is no reason to think otherwise. All you need to do is provide the evidence that can withstand legitimate criticism, rather than pretending that I am ignoring this vacuous assertion. Berlinski is a perfect example; he put forth a criticism outside his field of expertise which was subsequently shown by biologists to be without scientific merit. Good for him for trying. At least his efforts earned him a senior fellowship with the Discovery Institute even if he failed to dent the scientific solidity of evolutionary biology. His criticism was not “ridiculed and dismissed” because it did not fit evolutionary theory; it was deconstructed and shown to be false on its own merit. Hence, it did not offer anything new nor reveal any weakness about evolutionary theory.

      Comment by tildeb — November 12, 2009 @ 5:30 pm | Reply

  5. Here, start at this site: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.php

    It has a lot information for you to look through. Full disclosure, I have not read through it all and do not know if I agree with all of their findings but I have found of a lot of good questions that should be looked at.

    Comment by mcoville — November 12, 2009 @ 5:07 pm | Reply

    • You owe my two minutes I wasted on this site. It doesn’t even present what evolution is accurately and offers no scientific evidence to offer any alternative.

      How about you spend a bit of time and learn what evolution really means and what it looks like from an expert:

      It will not waste 57 minutes of your life and may in fact enrich it tremendously.

      Comment by tildeb — November 12, 2009 @ 6:32 pm | Reply

  6. The Moon landings are without any shadow of a doubt completely & quite obviously fake.

    Please see my latest posting refering to Dave McGowans articles.

    Thanks =)

    http://remotekontrol.wordpress.com/

    Comment by remotekontrol — October 25, 2010 @ 10:37 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: