an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Bob Sorensen Passes Judgement, Apparently Without Reading What He’s Judged…

For some reason the Christian Post website seems to think that Creationist pip-squeak Bob Sorensen is the ‘go to guy’ when they want a quote from a Creatard, and have asked for his ‘opinion’ on the following story -

An atheist professor will soon be releasing the hardback version of a book chronicling his experiences attending creation science conferences and sites.

Already available on Kindle and Nook, Jason Rosenhouse‘s book, titled Among the Creationists: Dispatches from the Anti-Evolution Frontline, includes details about his visits, including to the Creation Museum.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Rosenhouse, who is an associate professor of mathematics at James Madison University in Virginia, explained his reasons for writing the book.

“In May 2000, having just finished my graduate studies in mathematics, I began a post-doc at Kansas State University. This was when the fracas over their science standards was still in full swing,” said Rosenhouse.

“I found out about a conference for religious homeschoolers to be held in Wichita…It turned out that all of the keynote speakers at the conference were from Answers in Genesis. This led me to become interested in learning more about the science of evolution and what my fellow conference attendees thought about it.”

Now, considering that Bob is only just boasting about having been contacted by the CP today, I can’t imagine he’s had much time to read Rosenhouse’s book, but that hasn’t stopped him from opining on it -

Bob Sorensen, who is part of the “Question Evolution Project,” told CP that he felt Rosenhouse’s account of Creation Science conferences is one that is harmed by Rosenhouse’s “own biases and presuppositions.”

“He complained about the lack of ‘scholarly literature in this area.’ Yet, there are many technical articles from a variety of scientific disciplines available online. Did he bother to check those, and the credentials of the creationist scientists?” said Sorensen.

“Frankly, most evolutionists that I have encountered online who attempt to discredit creation science are woefully uninformed as to what is really taught and believed by creationists.”

Is that so, Bob? Perhaps you didn’t read this?

He goes on to take a poorly aimed swipe at the recent Reason Rally -

Sorensen, however, said the Reason Rally was another example of “New Atheists” co-opting terms like “rational” and “realist” even when their arguments lack reason.

“I have stopped many atheists in their tracks who call themselves ‘rational’ and who love ‘reason,’ but utilize the most basic logical fallacies,” said Sorensen.

“Some of the greatest scientists, past and present, have been Bible-believing Christians. We need to reclaim the ground that has been surrendered to secularists, and realize that God gave us minds to use.”

Bob, I know you’re very very deeply deluded, but surely even you realise that you’ve never stopped a single non-believer ‘in their tracks’ with your complete failure to understand even the basics of logical reasoning.

The Christian Post would have got more sense out of a donkey.

Single Post Navigation

11 thoughts on “Bob Sorensen Passes Judgement, Apparently Without Reading What He’s Judged…

  1. Could I recommend this ? http://theopologetics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/episode-77-world-is-young.html

    Hear the wisdom of Cowboy Bob and witness the group discussion of the ‘distant stalight’ problem.

    You too will be amazed. :-)

  2. Ydemoc on said:

    “Sorensen, however, said the Reason Rally was another example of “New Atheists” co-opting terms like “rational” and “realist” even when their arguments lack reason.”

    I wonder if Bob can tell us where in his Storybook we can find the term “rational.” Talk about co-opting!

    “I have stopped many atheists in their tracks who call themselves ‘rational’ and who love ‘reason,’ but utilize the most basic logical fallacies,” said Sorensen.”

    Is that right, Bob? Can you name some of those you’ve purportedly stopped in their tracks? Can you give us their arguments? Can you identify for us their “basic logical fallacies?”

    Please, don’t hold back.

    Ydemoc

  3. Pvblivs on said:

    Well, while I find Norman’s integrity to be non-existent, I was still unimpressed with the claim that evolution has not been falsified. It still looks to me that it is unfalsifiable as it makes no predictions. Instead, people make up “potential falsifiers” after they rule them out through other means. For example “changes in allelle frequency to become better adapted to the environment” does not predict that there will be no pre-cambrian rabbits. Indeed, this “prediction” was made after sufficient fossil discoveries allowed a statistical analysis to say there was a pattern to the record that ruled out precambrian rabbits.

  4. reynoldhall on said:

    We’ve been over this on Dan’s blog once or twice…”evolutionists” have made shitloads of predictions, but you just dismiss them.

    That example you give is totally off-base. They did not make the prediction of “no rabbits in the precambrian” based on “changes in allele frequency over time”! That’s too damed vague.

    Scientists theories are tested with parameters that are more specific than that.

    That precambrian test was based on the fossil record. If evolution was wrong; if all the animals and plants were made at the same time a few thousand years ago, that test would have failed: They would have found rabbits (and other vertebrates) in the precambrian.

    Those “patterns” you speak of show us the path that evolution took. If evolution didn’t happen, then at some point the “pattern” would deviate from what we can see or there’d be no pattern at all perhaps, and scientists who made predictions based on that pattern would eventually turn out to be wrong, then it’d be shown that something was wrong with the theory somewhere. It would need scrapping.

    No amount of “insurance” would have saved them because the expected reasoning behind the insurance: “that there’d never be an exception to the pattern that they see even if the theory were wrong somehow!” would be false itself.

    Scientists are not looking for “insurance” when they look for those patterns, they are looking for a way to test their theories, something to check them with. If they were looking for “insurance”, they’d make tests that would be literally impossible to falsify.

    Vertebrate fossils in the precambrian would have shot down evolutionary theory.

  5. Pvblivs on said:

    Reynold:

         Flat-earthers can make a lot of predictions that are true, too. They are able to do this because the predictions are not dependent on a flat earth. In the same way, I dismiss your prediction as not being dependent on evolution.
         “That example you give is totally off-base. They did not make the prediction of “no rabbits in the precambrian” based on “changes in allele frequency over time”! That’s too damed vague.”
         It is my experience, that when I say that there has been no test that had the potential to falsify evolution, the first thing someone comes up with is the precambrian rabbit. I agree that the example is off base in that it in no way was ever intended to test whether evolution was true. But it is what supporters chime in with.
         “Those ‘patterns’ you speak of show us the path that evolution took. If evolution didn’t happen, then at some point the “pattern” would deviate from what we can see or there’d be no pattern at all perhaps, and scientists who made predictions based on that pattern would eventually turn out to be wrong,”
         Those patterns were found before anyone made any predictions based on them. And evolution can still be true with a “no pattern” state. Evolution does not, for example, predict whether there will be fossils at all or that geological movements will preserve any patterns if fossils do turn up.
         Personally, I don’t think evolution is testable. That is, I don’t think that it is plausible to devise an experiment in which evolution predicts a particular outcome, alternate outcomes are plausible on the assumption that evolution is not true, and those alternate outcomes are not fakes that were rules out before the experiment was devised. However, if I am wrong and I am presented with an experiment which contradicts by belief, I have the set of criteria against which the claim can be measured. No one has yet presented me with such an experiment. Some people have told me that those criteria are somehow unreasonable.

    • Alex Botten on said:

      Pvbs, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I know I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t answer – if evolution isn’t what got us here, what is?

    • Flat-earthism failed because it couldn’t pass the tests. If science acted in the same way that you say “evolutionists” did, then no theory could ever be disproven because it could always be said that the theories testers insured that they made predictions that it wouldn’t pass.

      And evolution can still be true with a “no pattern” state.
      How? How could lineages be traced? How could we tell what developed from what?

      Evolution does not, for example, predict whether there will be fossils at all or that geological movements will preserve any patterns if fossils do turn up.
      Evolution does predict though, the general sequence of fossils and that older fossils will look less like the modern ones. That is a pattern. At least what I’m referring to by a pattern.

      That example you give is totally off-base. They did not make the prediction of “no rabbits in the precambrian” based on “changes in allele frequency over time”! That’s too damed vague.”
      It is my experience, that when I say that there has been no test that had the potential to falsify evolution, the first thing someone comes up with is the precambrian rabbit.
      Because such a thing would fly in the face of everything thats known about not only evolution, but would also throw geology off whack perhaps.

      I agree that the example is off base in that it in no way was ever intended to test whether evolution was true.
      Huh? That is a perfect test. It would test specifically between the young earthers and evolution. That old “two model” approach that they so love.

      What I was criticizing was that the bare definition of evolution be itself, without any fossils or anything else known about it, was too vague. Only once the pattern of invertebrate and vertebrate development began could we start to make tests to see if the patterns would hold.

  6. Pvblivs on said:

    Alex:

         I’ve said before I don’t need to establish what did get us here. My statements don’t even try to show that evolution is materially false. I state that it has not been tested in the way that scientific theories are. I further state that I don’t think it can be.
         As you are aware, Dan, Sye, and their ilk try to get their opponents to commit to a specific belief where the reality is unknown so that they can pick apart their opponents’ statements rather than defend their own. In essence, they say if christianity isn’t right, what is. They completely reject the correct notion that not having an unassailable alternative is not sufficient reason for committing to their brand of christianity. Now, look at your question. It is of precisely the same form. You don’t want to show that (contrary to my assessment) evolution has been subjected to attempts to falsify it. You want me to commit to something else that you can pick apart and then declare evolution the winner by default. I don’t need to declare anything the winner.

    • Alex Botten on said:

      Evolution has been repeatedly tested, Pvbs, and the science has led to the conclusion, not the other way around.

  7. Though it didn’t help when this came up before…tests of evolution.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,013 other followers

%d bloggers like this: