« The Parsimony of the Multiverse | Main | The “Autism Community” Punk’d! »

September 08, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I love it! Problem is, this game would last, oh... three minutes, MAX.

Just a small clarification, please:

Is the "Joker" cell in the middle free, or does it refer to any mention of William Dembski, Michael Behe, or Phillip Johnson?

Zeno:

I intended the "JOKER" square to either be a free square, or for any new ludicrous argument presented, or any argument I've missed. But I suppose it could be a mention of any of the jokers you list. Hadn't thought of that.

Make up your own rules.

Noting that the title concerns creationism, I would have a box for "Big Bang was God's act of creation", but I can't find a box to replace.

Funny. I did one of these, too, a few years back... see

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=105879

And yeah. It's a pretty short game.

The only remarkable thing about the creationists' arguments is it's remarkable how they continue to parrot the same arguments after they have been debunked years ago.
I think it's remarkable that they parrot arguments that were debunked over a century ago (Paley's Watchmaker, for instance), and that they always act or seem to think that they're the first person ever to levy that argument against evolution.

It's similar to the way that so many Christian apologists use Pascal's Wager. From Kirk Cameron's "I was an atheist, until I wondered 'what if I'm wrong'" to the vile Christian Rock song "What if You're Wrong," they always seem to think that these centuries-old fallacy-laden arguments are some sort of deep insight.

Does "Watch/Mousetrap/Mount Rushmore" cover "Hurricane + Junkyard =/= 747", or should I just stick that one under "Joker"?

I had the same question/concern. I figure it might fall under "random/chance," but I think it deserves a mention.

I notice you have "Darwinism" / "Darwinists" on your bingo card. I can understand the irritation at Creationists using this phrase, but I hear fellow Skeptics using that phrase all the time!

It really disappoints me because it sounds like we obsess about Darwin and it falsely characterises evolution as merely an idea one guy thought up years ago that everyone mindlessly repeats.

It could give people the impression that Charles Darwin is somehow vital to evolution, that if Darwin had never existed, no-one else could have come up with the idea. Darwin didn't create evolution, it already existed, he was merely in the right place, at the right time, to make the discoveries. He wasn't even the first or the only one. Evolution already existed, if Darwin had never been born, someone else would have filled his shoes.

I notice you have "Darwinism" / "Darwinists" on your bingo card. I can understand the irritation at Creationists using this phrase, but I hear fellow Skeptics using that phrase all the time!

It's largely a regional thing. From what I understand, especially from Dawkins' books, "Darwinism" is a common, respectable term for acceptance of evolution in England and Europe; over here, however, it's become the primary pejorative of the IDC crowd.

Calling it Darwinism is nutty for all the reasons you mention, Christopher, and at least one more: it fails to reflect all the progress that has been made since Darwin. Evolutionary science has been consistently expanded and revised over the last hundred years; calling the field "Darwinism" suggests that Origin was the be-all, end-all text on the subject.

It's like calling Physics "Newtonism," or Astronomy "Copernicanism." It doesn't accurately reflect the field.

I think "Repeats Debunked Arguments" Should be the free space.

You left out "I'll pray for you."

I'll be student teaching science this spring and I've added this activity to an end of the year lesson plan, THANK YOU.

Nothing exposes idiocy quite like mockery.

If the debunkings you guys are always speaking of hadn't themselves been debunked years ago, I suppose you'd have a point. It's amusing to think of yourself as winning every time a valid argument against you is brought up, whether for the first time or the millionth time. And a neat strategy to consider mention by your opponents of an argument that you yourselves have never adequately answered as somehow constituting losing. But hey, it's your game.

Matteo, if the debunkings of the debunks you speak of hadn't also been debunked i guess you would also have a point. Cheers.

Sounds like Matteo is trying to win by fiat. Too cowardly to take on our debunkings with the fictional ones you mention?

Bring it on.

OK Matteo. Pick a square. And debunk its debunking.

It seems to me your could use a couple of additional rows & columns! Going to 7x7 would nearly double the number of squares, but I doubt you'd have trouble filling them....

For example, The "tornado in a junkyard != 747" could fit under "watch etc", but really, it's common enough to warrant its own square. Indeed, the Paley's Watch variations fit together with the abuses of thermodynamics and information theory to form a category.

Likewise, Matteo offers at least one new square, call it "evolution has already been debunked" (but the debunking won't fit into this square/ show/ message /margin ;-) ). This would fit nicely alongside "just a theory", "theory in crisis" and "no evidence for evolution". Related squares would be "ID is science" and "the truth is out there". Arguably, "let the children decide" could fall into this group too.

Likewise, the "no morality without god", "Newton was religious", and "Darwinism is a faith" could be extended with "God will show you/you'll never win", and "only believers can see the truth".

If you want to make the large board easier, you could reserve the corner and/or cardinal spots for the most general categories:

"Faith uber alles": includes claiming ID as "just a theory like Darwinism"), claiming science as "just another religion", "God will punish you for your disbelief", etc/

"Abuse of science": Paley's watch, thermodynamics, "no new information", anthropicism, etc

"Ad hominem": Newton good, Hitler bad, "you fools at the institute", etc.

"Falsifying the record" (including quote-mining, claiming fossil evidence for the Flood, denying transitional fossils, et al.).

The central square could be used for "Projection", or for "La La La, I'm not listening!"

PS: Even with "allow typepad.com", NoScript does not like your preview or CAPTCHA pages....

It would be nice if you would do a Darwiniac/Evolutionist Bingo card, too. You can include things like "maybe", "might have", "possibly", "imagine", practically any adjective that means "may" should be included. Every time Richard Dawkins speaks, your card would be blacked out in 5 minutes.

As Colin Patterson once asked a group of evolutionists, "Name me any one thing you know to be true about evolution." All he got was silence.

I don't know about I.D. and have never read up on it. But I do know that evolution is nothing more than an unscientific story about how something MAY have happened. There is NO proof.

But I do know that evolution is nothing more than an unscientific story about how something MAY have happened. There is NO proof.
You, sir, are a moron.

Yes, absolutely scientists use terms like "may" and "maybe" and "probably"--science doesn't pretend to absolute certainty. Science is a process, in which theories are based on the available facts. As new facts become available, the theories change. So scientists say "maybe" and "probably" because although they are basing their claims on current facts, the set of facts is always changing.

You obviously haven't done any reading on ID or evolution. There is NO proof--except for all the proof. Try doing some research before categorically claiming that something isn't science. Basing a dogmatically-asserted opinion on absolutely no evidence? Now that's unscientific.

And yes, one paleontologist's unanswered question from a roomful of systematists (not, for instance, evolutionary biologists) twenty-seven years ago invalidates all the observations ever made of phenotypic and genetic evidence for evolution. That we've observed speciation in controlled settings, that humans and the other great apes share the same broken vitamin C gene, that diseases develop resistance due to the selection pressures of antibiotics on bacteria colonies--these and the myriad other sorts of evidence for evolution simply cannot stand before the evidentiary might of a roomful of quiet 1980s systematists.

Well John you filled in three boxes. You'll need to try harder.

"No evidence."
"Just a theory." (all the nonsense about may, might, possibly would fall under this).
"Darwiniac/evolutionist." (fills the Darwinist box).

I can't wait to yell "BINGO!" after listening in on a creationist lecture. lol

One of the squares could also be 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it.'

This is brilliant! Next time a fundie friend invites me to "a really interesting lecture, you'll love it, and you should come because I haven't seen you in so long, I'll pick you up at 7", I'm bringing one of these!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site