I am going to use the discussion points found on RichardDawkins.net as the basis of this feature.
Calilasseia is the author of the post and deserves many rich accolades for assembling so much useful information in one spot. This constitutes an open thread of sorts, please leave your opinions and observations in the comment section.
Enjoy!
[3] The “assumptions” canard (with “interpretation” side salad).
This is a frequent favourite with creationists, and usually erected for the purpose of attempting to hand-wave away valid science when it happens not to genuflect before their ideological presuppositions. As I have stated in [2] above, science is in the business of testing assumptions and presuppositions to destruction. As an example of destroying creationist apologetics with respect to this canard, I point interested readers to this post, where I destroyed the lies of the laughably named “Answers in Genesis” with respect to their assertion that 14C dating was based upon “assumptions”. I’ve also trashed this canard in detail with respect to radionuclide dating as a whole, so don’t even try to go down that road. Likewise, if you try to erect this canard with respect to other valid scientific theories, you will be regarded as dishonest.
Another favourite piece of creationist mendacity is the “interpretation” assertion, which creationist erect for the purpose of suggesting that scientists force-fit data to presuppositions. Apart from the fact that this is manifestly false, it is also defamatory, and a direct slur on the integrity of thousands of honest, hard working scientists, who strive conscientiously and assiduously to ensure that conclusions drawn from real world observational data are robust conclusions to draw. This slur, of course, is yet another example of blatant projection on the part of creationists, who manifestly operate on the basis of presupposition themselves, and appear to be incapable of imagining the very existence of a means of determining substantive knowledge about the world that does not rely upon presupposition. Well, I have news for you. Science does NOT rely upon “presupposition”. Indeed, scientists have expended considerable intellectual effort in the direction of ensuring that the conclusions they arrive at are rigorously supported by the data that they present in their published papers. There exists much discourse in the scientific literature on the subject of avoiding fallacious or weak arguments, including much sterling work by people such as Ronald Fisher, who sought during their careers to bring rigour to the use of statistical inference in the physical and life sciences. Indeed, Fisher was responsible for inventing the technique of analysis of variance, which is one of the prime tools used in empirical science with respect to experimental data, and Fisher expended much effort ensuring that inferences drawn using that technique were proper inferences to draw.
Basically, there is only one “interpretation” of the data that matters to scientists, and that is whatever interpretation is supported by reality. Learn this lesson quickly, unless you wish to be regarded as discoursively dishonest on a grand scale.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
5 comments
June 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm
steve
You missed the meaning and application of prayer. You see it’s prayer and then getting off your knees that accomplish something. There’s nothing accurate about your post. Just the same, lame, “smarter” than a believer attitude. When you use only half truths, that makes your post a lie. Christians pray … then act on that prayer. Not prayer exclusive. Jeez, I almost thought you were intelligent, after reading your comments on Ben’s blog. That is one that should fall into the catagory of comedy.
LikeLike
June 27, 2010 at 2:43 pm
The Arbourist
Hmmm, perhaps just like in Louisiana? The functional part of your statement, getting up off your knees and accomplishing something is true. The value of the stuff before that is negligible, at best.
One would have to back that assertion up with fact. As to the ‘smarter than thou’ attitude it is, as the article states a repost from the RD.net archive, and admittedly Calilasseia does not take a very diplomatic tone, but in his defense I believe he deals with more supercilious claims than many people and his vitriol is warranted.
I believe that a less specific reading of the graphic is in order, as I cannot speak to your personal experience with prayer.
Happy to disappoint Steve, although I do wonder as we have had several altercations at Ben’s and Moe’s blogs respectively where you have voiced opinions about my character far less favourably than just my particular IQ. Ad hominem considerations aside:
My level of intelligence has little to do with the veracity or accuracy of my statements, as I try to back up most of my assertions with fact. Therefore my assertions stand apart from who or what I am or any other negative attribute you arbitrarily decide to foist on me. :)
This also happens to be the topic of this post as most creationist arguments have little grounding with any sort of factual basis and go to great lengths to unsuccessfully discredit science and the scientific method for doing what it does best; describing the reality we exist in.
LikeLike
July 5, 2010 at 11:28 am
Alan Scott
The Arbourist,
You totally discount anything spiritual. Now even you must have observed that large groups can exert a collective will for good or bad. That the object of this will can even be detrimental to the individuals within the group. The individual soldiers within an army are at risk of death. In an army of Atheists, why would anyone ever fight collectively?
A soldier with a spiritual guidance has the assurance that he will go on after his physical death. On a negative side, this is why Islamic suicide bombers can blow themselves up.
LikeLike
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Mystro
“A soldier with a spiritual guidance has the assurance that he will go on after his physical death. On a negative side, this is why Islamic suicide bombers can blow themselves up.”
So your point is that atheists are less prone to violence, especially that of a fatal nature? That if religion was not brainwashed into people, they would be less likely to be soldiers and war (with all its atrocities) would be a less viable option for dealing with world issues? We, as a planet, might have to work together to fix things instead of thinking that murdering each other = victory?
yeah, I don’t see how this is a criticism.
LikeLike
July 9, 2010 at 11:44 am
The Arbourist
Checkmate, Atheists!
LikeLike