Sneaky Evolutionary Debate Tactics

We have seen many examples of the methods used to promote universal common ancestor evolution, and quite a few are disingenuous. Some are downright sneaky. Creationists frequently deal with straw man arguments, blatant misrepresentation, personal attacks, and so on. Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ often use distractions when the harsh light of truth gets them on the prod.

I have seen atheists and evolutionists who demand evidence for what biblical creationists believe. When it is provided, they bounce around to different subjects (which happens in all sorts of discussions, even informal ones). Anti-creationists and atheists try to put us on the defensive. Sometimes they claim to be asking "honest questions", and invariably trying to slap leather with the creationists with emotion-based distractions and attacks. I'll allow that it is easy to let ourselves follow their lead, but it they get mighty irritated when we keep them on topic.

Some of the distractions are along the lines of, "What if...?" That is, they are hypothetical situations. Scientists and other people have used hypothetical thought experiments for ages, but we have to be careful that the situation is not ridiculous and a set-up for a game of "Gotcha!" It's far better to keep the hoss in the coral; dealing with speculations instead of evidence and the truth of God's Word can easily become foolishness. Anti-creationists take great pleasure in wasting our time. Many times, we have to avoid the trickery and loaded questions. If the subject seems useful, you may want to consider rewording it and presenting it back to the questioner — or refusing altogether.

At a recent ICR event in Massachusetts, an attendee asked a trap-loaded question: “Some say that minor errors in the Bible are okay because they don’t hurt the Bible’s main message—but how do you deal with the Bible’s errors?” The scoffer added, “How do you fix your theology when new scientific discoveries prove that your literal belief in the Bible doesn’t work?”

Notice how the critic’s leading questions included built-in assumptions: “The Bible contains errors. Your theology is broken. Science disproves the Bible. A literal belief in the Bible is unreasonable.” They are similar to this unfair question: “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?”

To read the rest, click on "Beware the Bait of False Hypotheticals". Also, I recommend a related subject at "Countering emotional attacks on creation".