The Argument from Intimidation

Science • April 2008 • Views: 372

A common tactic used by the proponents of creationism. The creationists will ask minute questions about biological phenomena, that they don’t in fact want to know the answers to; they are counting on their victim to be ignorant of the answer and use this technique to instill or cultivate insecurity. There are many biological phenomena that are not understood, so if the intended victim knows the answer to their first question, it will be quickly ignored and another question will be asked until the intended victim doesn’t have an answer. Then pressure and guilt are applied liberally.

-1

Recent Pages by Dan G.:
The Brain Observatory 311 - Electricity Health Care in Massachusetts: A Warning for America Stossel: Why Obama's Health Plan Gets It Wrong John David Lewis's Analysis of HR3200, Read on Rush Yesterday.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 12:56:39am

Sorry Dan, but I HAD to ding it down…..I don’t know the proper edjicated term to call what that kind of “reasoning” is that the article writer did, but I’ll let “silly” suffice until it comes to the fore of my slow thinker. :)

Dan G. Apr 20, 2008 • 1:00:03am

So, you acted without knowledge, precluding a sound judgment… sounds silly to me.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 1:19:04am

re: #2 Dan G.

Full knowledge, good good judgment……in my soul, my brain, my heart…..just takes a while for it to all come together where so much of truth is singing in the universe of my being, in order to form it into words that people could understand….. :)

BlueCanuck Apr 20, 2008 • 1:29:27am

Growing up in a creationist household, learning actual science in school, I understand that type of argument. I try to be logical and the type of logic creationists use is circular at best. Their problem as well is that they keep moving the goal posts.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 1:32:59am

re: #4 BlueCanuck

Saying “that type of argument” is the trouble…….there isn’t that…….it is the tiny things, the most wonderful un-creatable things by man or “chance”, that prove so much, that God did do it, if there was any doubt beforehand! :)

Dan G. Apr 20, 2008 • 1:54:49am

“… moving the goal posts”

I know what you are saying, but the goal has always been the same, to discredit reason. The challenges raised, and invariably met, aren’t in ernest.

BlueCanuck Apr 20, 2008 • 2:16:21am

re: #5 Ma Sands

The trouble with the creationists is that they don’t go for just the little pieces. They also try to lump in all the big pieces as well. I would like them to point out the actual hand of god in the creation of life. If things were created by him where’s his signature? Sorry, not trying to be specious here, but there’s a lot about EARLY evolution that scientests are just beginning to find some plausible answers for. They’ve only been looking at the very small fine bits now for about 100 years. It takes time to test theories, run experiments, and filter any meaningful results.

bubbalouey Apr 20, 2008 • 2:33:34am

re: #6 Dan G.

I find you a bit intimidating, but I will put on my oakley half jackets and have NO FEAR!

Well then, lets get down to it, Dan G.

In earnest.

We can put your assertion to the test.

Where does reason discredit biblical creationism? Or, where does biblical creationism discredit reason?
Start where you will, sir.

Dan G. Apr 20, 2008 • 3:47:44am

Intimidating? Who’ve I threatened? Leading with a fallacy, I see.

Where does? Are you looking for a location? A citation in a book? I can tell you why, but not where.

Creatio ex nihilo, from a word spoken by an entity that existed in the world before it created the world… a contradiction and something from nothing. Contridictions don’t exist. Reason discredits creationism. QED

As for creationism trying to discredit reason, it does so by trying to convince people to believe what was written in a book, rife with contradictions, over 2 thousand years ago instead of what their own senses and experiences have demonstrated to be true. A scientist demonstrates that living entities are composed of a certain class of organic matter. Another demonstrates that comets also posses those same classes of matter. Another suggests that comets may’ve been the source of life on Earth, since they have that certain class of matter in common. Is this true? It is indemonstrable, but plausible… that is, it is not provable, because no one was there to witness it, nor has any evidence of such a seeding event been found, but it does not contain any internal contradictions. Creationists on the other hand, ignore these observations and the connections that rational minds draw between them in favor of text on papyrus.

By stating that ignoring evidence and the judgements that efficacious minds draw from that evidence is equal to just blindly and fearfully adhering to what someone wrote, without any judgement what so ever (that would be faithlessness) proponents of creationism seek to destroy the meaning of reason by equating it with un-reason, irrationalism, faith. QED.

Take what pot shots you want, you will not get any more of my time for your personal ammusement.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 4:51:53am

re: #7 BlueCanuck

See, I start with belief….and go from there. And everything fits. To the finest increment. No matter what discoveries are made, what I know of God is so deep that it holds until scientists, the unbelieving ones, have to drop to their knees in agreement…..because the facts fit. Since God created everything that is about science, He can do that. :)

BlueCanuck Apr 20, 2008 • 5:00:35am

re: #10 Ma Sands

I hate doing this, but I think that’s part of the problem with ID/Creationism. Belief over facts. Faith versus scientific method. So many of those people try to hammer us over the head that it says so in the Bible/Koran and that’s that. I have said before though that god is a mathmatician. But I don’t take Genisis Chapter 1 literally.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 5:05:51am

re: #11 BlueCanuck

Don’t hate to do it. It is okay, because, you know what? Those who believe in evolution are operating under that same beginning principle. Belief. :)

guada Apr 20, 2008 • 7:01:29am

As a point of clarification: asking minute questions about the specifics of an opponent’s position is not an example of Argument by Intimidation.

Argument by Intimidation is an attempt to impeach an opponent’s character.

As the article in the link states: the pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

This logical fallacy can be, and often is, employed by both sides of the creation/evolution debate.

An example of Argument by Intimidation by a creationist would be an attempt to impeach the character of the evolutionist by declaring him evil and destined to hell for his opinion.

An example of Argument by Intimidation by an evolutionist would be an attempt to impeach the character of the creationist, declaring him dishonest [asking questions he doesn’t in fact want to know the answers to], heartless and insensitive [attempting to instill or cultivate insecurity in his “victims”], and ignorant [blindly and fearfully adhering to what someone wrote, without any judgment what so ever].

Notice that in both of these classic examples of Argument by Intimidation, no attempt is made to address the specifics of the opponent’s position. Rather, those who hold said position are considered to be morally unworthy.

the_vig Apr 20, 2008 • 7:33:42am

Since I would hate to intimidate anyone, I would like our resident IDers to answer a couple of questions that I have about your competing theory.

1. Did the Designer create the systems that allows life to propagate and continue or did He create the final product? ie. us.

2. If the designer did create us, why do we have a tail bone? The Tail bone is a vestigial body part, but it does make our butts look the way they do, was the creator an ass man.

3. What is the next step for ID? What is the course of research that we can approach? How will we use ID to further medical research?

4. Which creation story is correct? As I see it ID believes that a creator designed us, who was the designer, how do we research this. Would Christian Id’ers be ok if we teach Hindu ID to students. It is the older religion.

This and millions of other questions need to be honestly addressed by the Id’ers. If you claim the ID is a science then you better get ready to address any and all questions. And “I believe” is not a valid answer. You see, the problem with ID is that it pulls religion into the realm of science where all beliefs are questioned.

bubbalouey Apr 20, 2008 • 10:49:55am

re: #9 Dan G.

What? Are you a liberal?

Many liberals seem incapable of having a sense of humor about themselves. I begin with teasing word play on the title of a link you posted, and you call it a fallacy and then you run for cover by refusing to interact with me in any reasonable way to validate your claims about argument by intimidation, which you implied I was doing in another link thread.
So far it appears that you are the only one making argument by intimidation.

You make accusations about people, then you obfuscate with vague statements concerning a book you know nothing about and then run to hide behind mommy’s apron strings.

This is the type of behavior one would expect from Al Franken, Bill Maher or Keith Olberman.

I guess lizards can be cowards. Oh wait, I got that wrong. Your views and opinions are so much higher than mine that I do not merit response from your supremeness. You will not deign to bother yourself with my questions.
Sounds like Obama after he was asked questions he didn’t like in the last debate.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 10:51:43am

Why, Honorary Yooper, the “ding-down”?

To “the_vig”, the answer to your #1 is that Jesus holds all things together, and without Him nary a breath could one take. Is it not an eye-opening thought, that in order for nails to be pounded into His hands and feet, He had to hold together what made the hammer as well as everything that made up the life of the pounder?!
You ask how to research: if you do not come, realizing your need for Him, it won’t work. But, if you have even the longing the size of a mustard seed, seek Him, first, in His Word the Bible, and when you’ve got Him, all else will fall into place.

sincerely,
Ma Sands

P.S. guada, what a sweet first post! :)

the_vig Apr 20, 2008 • 11:34:27am

re: #16 Ma Sands

Thanks Ma, you have just iterated the reason that most science minded people will no longer debate this issue. We are not speaking the same language, Hell, I don’t even think telepathy will help.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 11:57:41am

re: #17 the_vig

Truly we are, though. It is the language of belief. It is so hard, though, for evolutionists to see, or admit, that they come from a foundation of believing, or wanting to believe in evolution. And the reason it is hard for them, is that they do not want to discover God, for they think that’d be no fun. :)

bubbalouey Apr 20, 2008 • 12:06:14pm

re: #14 the_vig

I don’t consider myself an IDer, but having received the gift of faith from god I am inclined to believe the bible. This does not mean I understand all, or even most, of it.
I will attempt to provide responses to your questions from my pov.

1. Did the Designer create the systems that allows life to propagate and continue or did He create the final product? ie. us.

I don’t think the bible is perfectly clear about this. As I understand it, he created both ways.

2. If the designer did create us, why do we have a tail bone? The Tail bone is a vestigial body part, but it does make our butts look the way they do, was the creator an ass man.

No he wasn’t an ass man, but he knew many of us would be.

3. What is the next step for ID? What is the course of research that we can approach? How will we use ID to further medical research?

I don’t know what ID teaches, but my impression is that it is not intended to meet any such purposes.

I don’t care what you teach students, as long as you believe and can demonstrate it should or will truly benefit them in their life’s endeavors. You can believe whatever you think merits your belief.
Christianity only makes claims that those who have been called into the faith by god should believe the bible. If you haven’t received the gift of faith from god, you cannot really believe the bible. So why should I expect you or anyone else outside of this qualification to believe it?

Why Christians and churches attempt to get anyone outside of this calling to believe it is beyond me, for it is not of true god given faith to believe without having received revelation from god. Clearly, Christians are told to witness and testify, but they are also told to go on from those who do not receive them in this matter. It is pointless to sow on fallow ground.

FoolsMate Apr 20, 2008 • 12:11:03pm

The Pope himself has stated that the scientific theory of evolution is compatible with Catholicism. The small minded ignorance of literal bible creationists and their cottage industry of lame attempts to discredit evolution astounds me.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 1:08:13pm

re: #20 FoolsMate

Ah, and there is the rub! :) —the purpose is to lead evolutionists into truth, not to discredit evolution. An eternity of difference there! :)

FoolsMate Apr 20, 2008 • 1:16:29pm

Ma Sands,
Might I inquire what denomination or religion you believe in? I’d bet money there are “evolutionists” among you.

Dan G. Apr 20, 2008 • 1:41:21pm

Guada,

The minute details “part” isn’t the essential characteristic. Its the fact that they don’t want the answer and are asking questions until they exhaust the individual’s/field’s answers. Then to harp on the lack of answers.

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 1:49:20pm

re: #22 FoolsMate

Sure you may, and I’d be glad to answer! :)

I go to a tiny Baptist church. I am born again, like Jesus told Nicodemus we have to be. :)

No money needed to bet —it doesn’t work that way: as one receives light from the Father of Lights he, again by Jesus having told us to, shares it, and then it is the Holy Spirit’s job to take it from there.

love ya :)

FoolsMate Apr 20, 2008 • 2:12:46pm

Ma Sands,
I guess the point of my question is: what makes you presume that some evolutionists, as you call them, haven’t been born again? A broad range of religious beliefs are held by scientists of all kinds, including those working in the field of evolutionary science. What is it about evolution that is incompatible with sincere faith in Christ?

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 3:11:07pm

re: #25 FoolsMate

The essence of being saved, is believing that Jesus is who He says He is, and did what He says He did, and accepting that gift of being reconciled with the Father. All else, including lack of understanding, is then dealt with by the Holy Spirit in God’s timing for each person…..sometimes He gets to the thoughts on evolution part before the person steps into eternity. :)

FoolsMate Apr 20, 2008 • 3:44:15pm

Ma Sands,
Fill in the blanks below.

The scientific theory of evolution conflicts is in conflict with my Christian beliefs when it states that _______________________________.

You do believe the two are in conflict, or do I misunderstand you?

Ma Sands Apr 20, 2008 • 3:59:53pm

re: #27 FoolsMate

Evolution is not truth. Does that answer what you are asking me? :)

FoolsMate Apr 21, 2008 • 4:44:48pm

Ma Sands,
I think so. You’re entitled to your beliefs of course, but ugh. I honestly feel sorry for you, because if an omnipotent, omniscient god exists, the evolutionary process is part of his creation, and you’ve closed yourself off to its wonders. I don’t think the “Light” is supposed to blind you to what can be proven.

Ma Sands Apr 21, 2008 • 7:55:23pm

re: #29 FoolsMate

Well, if you put a capital g on the word God, in your heart, the wonder of Himself would begin to overwhelm you…..”light” is what He is made of, and when He imparts it to us it takes the form of His truths being revealed…..He takes the scales of the eyes of our hearts off only as fast as we will let Him…..

FoolsMate Apr 21, 2008 • 8:19:46pm

Ma,
1000 years from now, someone just like you will be selling the same old line, except for a different religion. The new gods will be fine, too, for people to worship, but it will be sad if the clerics, priests, imams or whatever haven’t figured out not to deny what can be proven by scientific methods.

Ma Sands Apr 21, 2008 • 9:03:46pm

re: #31 FoolsMate

Honey, I don’t think you’ve got that much time…..think seriously….. :)

FoolsMate Apr 21, 2008 • 9:30:36pm

Ha! That much is true.
/handshake

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!