Fact Checkers for Evolution
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
People familiar with softball and baseball probably know about how a catcher will frame a pitch. If it comes close to the strike zone, the catcher can make subtle movements to make it appear like a strike to the umpire, even if it is not there.
On one hand, it can be a form of cheating, but on the other, the catcher can make a good pitch look like it missed the strike zone. There is a similarity in this to people and organizations who are self-proclaimed fact checkers. Someone pointed out that the name is a bit misleading, as facts are facts. True, but how facts are presented or framed can inform or deceive people.
There are two areas of poor logic involved here. The first is an appeal to authority fallacy, which means that if a certain person, group, site, or organization made a proclamation, it must be true. However, many so-called fact checkers are simply people with computers doing things that the rest of us can accomplish as well. Also, there are times when someone is an authority on a subject but is also wrong if using faulty or nonexistent documentation.
We have to be careful when considering another area of poor logic: the genetic fallacy. In the briefest terms, it is rejecting information because of the source. I lost count of all the times that anti-creationists rejected information because it came from creation science sources —
"You were keeping count, Cowboy Bob?"
Well, if I had started, I would have lost count by now.
The truth of something should be evaluated on its own validity. However (this is the tricky part), there are times when claims can be treated with extreme skepticism when the source is demonstrated to have been misleading and outright dishonest. Also, if they have agendas.
For example, the political outfits Factcheck, Politifact, Snopes, and others are not only heavily biased to the left politically, they have bad reputations. If you head on over to atheist and anti-creationist sites, you are highly unlikely to find accurate representations of Christianity and biblical creation science, yet they claim to "fact check" by using other bigoted sources. It works in a circle.
If you've followed the links in the preceding paragraph, you will notice that I used sources that are not leftist. That's because the mainstream news media has been caught lying or framing claims to the left, and I simply don't trust them.
You have probably heard of quote mining, which is a frequent charge against creationists when we cite evolutionists. (I showed how viperine these people can be in "That Quote Mining Monkey Business".) Pay attention, Hoss. When accused of quote mining (assuming you're not being a weasel your ownself), the ones making accusations need to show that the quote was inaccurate, taken out of context, and the speaker or writer did not mean what was said. Savvy? When challenging accusers with these things, I've been greeted with silence, or else they change the subject and attack. That means they've lost.
In the spirit of, "Who watches the watchers?", we need to know who is checking the alleged fact checkers. Many times, they are framing their remarks by omitting important details, using inaccurate or incomplete quotes, edited or incomplete video footage, and so on.
In this postmodern culture, truth is relative or even nonexistent in the minds of some people. This view is self-refuting and unlivable, which makes it ironic when people complain about lies and injustices. "Do the right thing!" Really? Who makes the rules?
In reality, everyone has some sort of ultimate standard. Atheists tend to have shifting standards based on pragmatism and personal gain. When atheists accuse me of lying about evolution, for example, I have asked them that if I really was lying, why would that be wrong according to an evolutionary worldview? They cannot give a coherent reply.
Jesus told us that we would be hated. I believe that biblical creationists are more hated than typical church-goers because we uphold truth, logic, rational thinking, and the ultimate standard of the Bible. People hate scriptural authority. The truth is that God's Word is final. That's a fact, and you can check it yourself.
People familiar with softball and baseball probably know about how a catcher will frame a pitch. If it comes close to the strike zone, the catcher can make subtle movements to make it appear like a strike to the umpire, even if it is not there.
 |
| Credits: Original from FreeImages / Julie Elliott-Abshire, modified with PhotoFunia See what I did there? |
There are two areas of poor logic involved here. The first is an appeal to authority fallacy, which means that if a certain person, group, site, or organization made a proclamation, it must be true. However, many so-called fact checkers are simply people with computers doing things that the rest of us can accomplish as well. Also, there are times when someone is an authority on a subject but is also wrong if using faulty or nonexistent documentation.
We have to be careful when considering another area of poor logic: the genetic fallacy. In the briefest terms, it is rejecting information because of the source. I lost count of all the times that anti-creationists rejected information because it came from creation science sources —
"You were keeping count, Cowboy Bob?"
Well, if I had started, I would have lost count by now.
The truth of something should be evaluated on its own validity. However (this is the tricky part), there are times when claims can be treated with extreme skepticism when the source is demonstrated to have been misleading and outright dishonest. Also, if they have agendas.
For example, the political outfits Factcheck, Politifact, Snopes, and others are not only heavily biased to the left politically, they have bad reputations. If you head on over to atheist and anti-creationist sites, you are highly unlikely to find accurate representations of Christianity and biblical creation science, yet they claim to "fact check" by using other bigoted sources. It works in a circle.
If you've followed the links in the preceding paragraph, you will notice that I used sources that are not leftist. That's because the mainstream news media has been caught lying or framing claims to the left, and I simply don't trust them.
You have probably heard of quote mining, which is a frequent charge against creationists when we cite evolutionists. (I showed how viperine these people can be in "That Quote Mining Monkey Business".) Pay attention, Hoss. When accused of quote mining (assuming you're not being a weasel your ownself), the ones making accusations need to show that the quote was inaccurate, taken out of context, and the speaker or writer did not mean what was said. Savvy? When challenging accusers with these things, I've been greeted with silence, or else they change the subject and attack. That means they've lost.
In the spirit of, "Who watches the watchers?", we need to know who is checking the alleged fact checkers. Many times, they are framing their remarks by omitting important details, using inaccurate or incomplete quotes, edited or incomplete video footage, and so on.
In this postmodern culture, truth is relative or even nonexistent in the minds of some people. This view is self-refuting and unlivable, which makes it ironic when people complain about lies and injustices. "Do the right thing!" Really? Who makes the rules?
In reality, everyone has some sort of ultimate standard. Atheists tend to have shifting standards based on pragmatism and personal gain. When atheists accuse me of lying about evolution, for example, I have asked them that if I really was lying, why would that be wrong according to an evolutionary worldview? They cannot give a coherent reply.
Jesus told us that we would be hated. I believe that biblical creationists are more hated than typical church-goers because we uphold truth, logic, rational thinking, and the ultimate standard of the Bible. People hate scriptural authority. The truth is that God's Word is final. That's a fact, and you can check it yourself.