The Failure of Democracy?

As news continually updates us with more impassioned protests, screaming pundits, and overall mass divisiveness across the nation, if we can backup a bit perhaps these thoughts might offer an explanation of what has been happening. Let us see if we can accurately describe the current state of affairs. The “United States had become a nation polarized by specific regional identities… The Democrats... emphasized the right of individual states to create and enforce laws… The divide in the parties can be seen in the state’s political newspapers… Debates about the bill erupted throughout the nation. Despite public opposition, Douglass, “utilizing all his powers of argument, his prestige, and his mastery of parliamentary tactics [forced] the bill through Congress by the narrowest of margins.” Yes, I admit there was a certain level of cherry picking used to make the quotes fit, but I think you get the point. Please do not think I am particularly targeting the Democratic party of today as a parallel of the pro-slavery Democrat party of the 19th century. That discussion would distract from the issue this hopes to address. That is, the level of political division in this nation is not uncharted territory and perhaps if we take a step back there might be some perspective to gain on the causes.

I do not think it is too much to compare the current political climate today to that leading up to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. Namely, there are bouts of unrest across the nation over hotly divided issues, which at large might be summarized as Identity Politics which more or less follow clear political partisanship divides. Sentiments were strong and divided about who gets to govern whom, and the federal system at large was in question. Insert the overused quip about those who do not remember history here. The nice thing about remembering history is the prospective we have, especially when there is a plethora of recorded writings and plenty of time to separate us from the passions of the time. We can have a clear understanding of the sentiments at the time while being isolated enough that the issue is less personal in nature.

Conventional lectures on the road to the Civil War highlight the competing powers between the North and the South that started as soon as independence was gained and continued until the most costly war in our history “settled” it. Consider this perspective, if we were to take a proportional comparison of the Civil War to our current population, 6.5 million people would have lost their lives. The typical lecture might highlight the expansion of the territory in the US and the designation of slave or free as the overall cause. In that approach the point of no return might be the Compromise of 1850, the Dredd Scott decision, or Lincoln's House Divided speech. It might highlight the shift in understanding of the institution of slavery itself, from the Peculiar Institution which Thomas Jefferson thought it to be, to the Positive Good by the late 1830’s. This shift in philosophy fomented the institution that made it worth defending to enough people that it eventually lead to war.

Ultimately, I point to the breakdown of the institutions put in place that prevented our nation from being a direct democracy. These institutions are described in detail in the Federalist, those would be; separation of powers, extended republic, bicameral legislature, and the electoral college to name a few. Summed up, the Federalist system as defined by the Founders and illustrated in the Constitution. There are volumes of writings extolling the virtues and understandings of these structures and I am but a pup in the presence of academic giants. Unfortunately, unless one was home-schooled, there is a very good chance the Federalist or a serious consideration of the Founding documents were not considered unless one took a proactive posture to understand the Founding.

The Separation of Powers essential purpose was to ensure each branch of government would conflict with one another, competing for greater power in their respective branch. In doing so, the three way competition would result in each branch being limited to their own respective range of authority. Imagine giving three children a pie to share in which two children get to make the slices and the third gets to choose which piece to take. It would be in the self interest of the two slice makers to attempt the most even division, in order to maximize their self interest. The 20th century saw a shift in jurisprudence which has furiously sought to judge the law not from the bindings of the text of the statutes, but from the greater wisdom of the judges to accomplish a sort of “justice” not found in the text of the laws under question. For these many decades the Legislature, who has the explicit and exclusive right to make law, has seen fit to abdicate that power in the most controversial issues, because the lifetime appointment of the jurists allow it. Why would a congressperson risk upsetting their constituents if a judge will accomplish the same goal? There are many issues with the Legislature not doing their duty, this is one of the grandest abdications.

The Extended Republic was the notion that the nation would be so diverse that no majority faction (party) would be able to successfully quell the minority. This model essentially spoke against the two-party system. While it is true that within a couple years of the Constitution’s ratification, the very authors separated into parties, for the first hundred years of American politics, third parties held a legitimate place of influence at the federal level. It was not until the 20th century that parties made rules in the House and Senate that continued to grow to the point that third parties are realistically a wasted vote in national elections. One of the most caustic aspects how parties fulfil the right definition of “factions” is how they control committee assignments and maintain a hierarchy of representatives. The best suited representatives are not put in committees for their fitness but instead because they have pleased the party powers to be rewarded with the places of greater influence.

The Bicameral Legislature is the most deliberate sign that direct democracy is not a good thing. The balance of power within the legislature itself, between the House and Senate clearly illustrate the Founders concern of the passions of the people (or mob) should not rule. This was the solution to learned men who considered how the best form of government is made through a social contract while simultaneously and deliberately creating space to slow the process of governance. A majority faction can easily stir a group of people to get any law passed regardless of Constitutionality. The bicameral legislature soothed those passions. Keep in mind, in the original form, Senators were selected by state legislatures. I think one of the most grievous amendments to the nation has been the direct election of senators in the 17th Amendment. This has lead to people so focused on what the Federal government does and an inverse attention to what the state does. The legitimate slowing of the deliberative republican process was the best answer to the diverse regions of the nation. As the nation expanded, the diversity of regions also expanded, hence extending the republic further, that might ensure even greater agreement in the federal laws passed. In the same way, the Electoral College accomplished that goal for the presidency. The legitimacy and need of the Electoral College has been in question a handful of times in the recent decades but in reality it only confirmed that we are a federated republic not a pure democracy. We cannot be a nation of coastal urban elites, or rural lords, but a consensus of the regions.

This is far from a complete analysis of the present political climate, but hopefully these suggestions might add context to your considerations of what this nation was founded to be and what it should become. There are numerous scholars who recognize these things but also recognize the social contract made at the Founding was made to an entirely different society, hence we are being constrained by the rules of the dead. That is a consideration that is worthy to be made. I tend to side, that before we replace the rules of the dead, perhaps we should understand what they made, the issues they addressed, and if we could do better.

Re: Viral Video about Millennials in the Workplace

Re: Viral Video about Millennials in the Workplace

In case you happen to read this, thanks for your patience. This semester was a doozy and I had to step back from pretty much anything not work or school. In the same way one might hypothetically see how many drinks they can handle in order to know “how much is too much” this is how I would describe my course load. This was too much, I didn’t puke, but I know my limit now. Knowing is half the battle, right?

So there is this 15 minute clip floating around that has some interesting insights into the dreaded “Millennials.” I’m not familiar with Mr. Sinek, but he has some good insights and descriptions about this odd group of people. His web pages indicate he’s a pretty smart guy and the video only adds to his intellectual repertoire. In case you haven’t seen the video or you haven’t yet decided to watch it, the skinny is this: he diagnoses the problems employers/corporate America is having with the millennial generation. This is not a particularly new topic, from politicians, business leaders, and missiologists, apparently this generation is a difficult one to pin. In the opening he nails it, millennials want purpose in their work.

I am not one to really counter that, my current path in life is in the pursuit to have the most fulfilling career that suits my passions. In some way, the reason I am doing what I am doing is because I could do no other career path. This is in contrast to the vision that our grandparents generation has been stereotyped to have, in which the goal from a job is to have one, then to get by. This is particularly true of the working class vision of Americana. To offer a movie clip which I would describe this view is from the film Rudy, at the bus stop. His father tries to talk him out of his dream to go to Notre Dame. Yes, I know the true story about Mr. Ruettiger is not as pure, but that’s why movies are “based” on true story. Anyways, the past generations used to be satisfied with a good job that paid on time and afforded one to provide for the needs of their family. Today, my peers, who also are having fewer children and getting married later, want their job for more than a paycheck, they want a purpose from it.

Sinek points this out very well but his remedy I have to disagree. In order for his approach to occur the structure of corporate America must change entirely to meet the needs of this generation who “by no fault of their own” were apparent victims of poor parenting. The poor parenting strategy was summed up as: Parents who did not allow their children to fail, but ensured their success was not through their efforts but from their intervention, this has been termed Helicopter parenting. By this point, the term Millennial is much less than those born in 1984 to 1995. His implicit description are those of middle to upper class with a probable two parent household who are college graduates. Not to take away from his message, but I think we need to be careful when grouping people by generic factors like age, it is overly broad. Sinek thinks it is the responsibility of employers to meet the needs of this generation, this calls for a complete overhaul in the purpose of business at large.

I recognize there are some companies who were founded based on something other than money, there are very few large businesses which find this model sustainable. For a test, see how many annual meetings highlight the immaterial purposes of the company above the bottom line. How many investors are more concerned with the accomplishments of the company than the return? This is that brutal reality check that Millennials are being confronted and lack means to cope. I think it is a mistake to look to one’s career for its primary meaning. That is not to say one should not seek to be fulfilled in their career path, but there should be something else that defines who one is beyond their business card. The ancients would call this virtue. I’ll try to describe this in secular terms.

Virtue is formed by our community. Hopefully and primarily by one's family, but those without the blessing of a mostly stable two-parent household are not permanently disadvantaged. Community consists of those in close proximity and influence. If family does not teach virtue, then hopefully it would be through church, volunteer work, intramural, or some other extracurricular voluntary gathering. My bias thinks church is the best format because all the other gatherings are based on an activity over a shared belief, whereas people can similarly enjoy baseball but have very different views on morality, but if people attend a local church together, they are much more likely to have similar views on morality. Dennis Prager, an author and radio show how, frequently challenges that with the decline of religious belief, there is an inevitable decline in public virtue. He further argues that no other organization teaches values better than religious institutions. I will be more charitable and hope there are institutions with virtuous people who overflow on the people they impact with their virtue, regardless of the purpose of the institution. Virtue ultimately comes from one person and is passed to the next. It is no doubt the best transference of this virtue is by watching another more experienced person pass it down from one to another. The interpersonal aspect of virtue is essential lest the virtues be limited to abstract ideals not grounded in reality.

If nothing else I’ve picked up from the election cycle this year talking to people, I have recognized how much Millennials long for heaven. They long for their image of perfection, this is why they can make castigating claims against others’ nation, race, gender, career, ect. because the standard is not history, but their ideal. It gets worse when Millennials, or the next power group fails to see the mistakes of past idealists imprint from history. We must insist, that when “they” did it, they just didn’t do the right way, but when “we” do it, everyone will be happy and full. One cannot create a new society from scratch, they must acknowledge the previous generations not with their idea of righteous indignation, but with an understanding of reasonableness. I see these longings as the groaning of the effects from sin, the only problem is the idea of sin is not compatible with the vision of many Millennials. If we are to address a problem, the first step is recognizing it exists.

Election 2016 - What does Roe v. Wade say?

I just finished my final short essay for Constitutional Law which I had to review all the case opinions on abortion. Since it is a presidential election year many people are pretending to act like they deeply care about the life of the unborn per their moral duty every four years. Regardless how “settled” this issue is, it is one of the essential topics that must be addressed by both sides during the political campaigns. At the same time, with the knowledge I have concerning the present constitutional status of abortion, the only influence the President can offer is concerning the Supreme Court. In many ways this election cycle could be summarized as “All About the Court.” As one who takes great interest and joy in studying the Courts, it is certainly reasonable that so much concern is given to the judicial nominees. It is just sad because the Court was designed to be the “least dangerous branch.”

As candidates, journalists, and pundits weigh in on the abortion I have heard numerous times all they wanted was the continued survival of Roe. It was such proclamations that echoed the attacks or defense of the Texas case before the Supreme Court a few months ago. However, if one listened to the oral argument the concern was not for Roe, but for Casey. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) was the all important case that reaffirmed Roe but also established the “undue burden” test. Thus any law that seeks to limit or affect abortion must not incur an “undue burden.” This case I think is the real barrier to any redress of abortion by the democratic process.

The actual issue of Roe was the grounds by which a woman might have the right to an abortion. Under the chain of cases that started in 1965 with the availability of birth control for married couples, a right of privacy was recognized. A hop and a skip and that right to privacy struck down bans on interracial marriage, then opened up access to birth control for non-married women, which was followed by Roe. The justification of Roe stood and still stands on the every growing absolute right to privacy, at least concerning intimate matters. It would not be a stretch that if one desires unlimited rights to a particular area, they need only to fetishize it and the Court will grant the utmost respect.

In addition to Roe declaring a right to abortion existed, it also denied the fetus personhood. The denial was so adamant that “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14] Amendment.” The Court has refrained from defining what a fetus is, only saying what it is not. Instead of making such a medical and philosophical judgement the Court declared the attributes of personhood depended on “viability.” The Court has also refrained from making a clear definition of viability. In fact, they have gone out of their way to deny any other institution from defining viability,

In the process, we made clear that the trimester framework incorporated only one definition of viability—ours—as we forbade States to decide that a certain objective indicator—“be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor”—should govern the definition of viability. (Casey)

Roe set not standards on the level of access one must have to abortion. That was actually Doe v. Bolton (1973), decided on the same day as Roe. So, the next time a politician, pundit, or acquaintance wants to laud the liberties of Roe, you will know what the text actually says and what the argument relies upon. At what point will the humanity of the unborn be realized? I do not know. With all the talk about “being on the right side of history” I hope the realization will happen sooner than later.

What is Worldview?

What is a worldview? The term is believed to be rather young in terms of American English. The definition might be as simple as the compound word itself “world” being the planet Earth which we all reside and “view” the interpretation of what is seen. Putting the two words together, worldview is simply, how one sees the world. This does not mean I see tree leaves as light green and you might think them dark green, this is of grander importance than how we describe chlorophyll concentration in leaves. Worldview is often in terms of one’s personal philosophy. Do we view the world as a cosmic accident in which there is no purpose or reason for life? Or do we view the world as a purposeful place, with a reason, and perhaps with a greater intelligence?

I commonly see one of two worldviews lived. The first, people are mere pawns of the world, at the mercy of an uncaring world and hoping to make it out with their own idea of happiness sought. The second, people see themselves as the masters of their world, they think they are in control of what is around them and they will never approach a greater power for which they must give account. Those worldviews are polar opposites from each other, as would be expected; for the middle ground would introduce some form of deism they ought to apply in the most ineffectual manner. One might recognize the emptiness of existence absent purpose but they cannot identify the proper filling. The other is lost but refuses to admit to being lost with pride. They sometimes will go so far that an admission of being lost is weakness, instead a mask is applied, with enough practice the mask is real enough and reality is ignored. There is also the rare occasion which I see a Christian worldview in practice which they see the world and its inhabitants in completely different terms entirely.

Who am I to make such observations? Do I claim to know all the answers and all the wisdom to know that people are lost or too proud to admit their misdirection? Hardly, I am but one person who recognizes that I too could have defined my life in that way. Furthermore, do I need all the answers and wisdom to know when something is wrong? I think God has given us the intuitive knowledge from Romans 1 that we can all know when something is not right, whether we have exchanged that knowledge for something else is the difference. I can offer only what knowledge and experience I have and what has been given to me by God. Between the two sources I can confidently discern when something is as it ought to be. It is not difficult to know when something is not right, but it can be difficult to know what is right.

A worldview differs from a personal philosophy in which people claim what they believe whereas a worldview is defined by how one lives. Worldview can also be described as the type of looking glass we see the world. A person with a Christian worldview ought to see the world far differently than a person with a naturalistic worldview. I don’t think worldview is a word to replace belief. I see it as an answer to the compartmentalization of thought that Americans have popularized. There is thought in terms of science, history and the empirical disciplines. There is also thought in terms of faith and religion, which for many are completely severed from the empirical disciplines. I explain this disconnect deeper in Losing Our Minds.

I am tempted to think the modern American word of worldview is closer to what Romans 10:8-10 is actually talking about when it says “believe”. When I have further cross referenced the context of “believe” in scripture it seems to imply more than a set of thoughts or mental agreement. I have come to the conclusion that “believe” as scripture describes must be followed through with an active lifestyle. In Acts 16:30-34, belief was followed by baptism. The calling for belief is mentioned in the Great Commission which Christ says,

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." -(Mark 16:16-18).

This passage is perhaps the only time Christ says to “believe” but it is not left as a mental agreement, it implies action. Being that I have not exorcised, spoken in tongues, snake handled, or cured the sick via laying on hands but I am still assured of my relationship with Christ I believe there is more to what Christ said. I don’t think those are the only specific actions which are the criteria for being known as a Child of God. I think the miracles performed by the disciples in Acts through the Holy Spirit were the manifestation of Christ’s authority. I also point to Matthew 7:22-23 to clarify it is not about works but the real relationship with Christ.

Worldview tends to affect our thinking in the realm of faith and politics. It is shocking how closely the two are related but how far so many try to separate them. Knowing what our looking glass ought to show us, how do those images match with our political beliefs? Being the conservative Republican that identify myself with, I cannot escape from the consistencies and inconsistencies represented by my political affiliation. Ultimately my political thoughts should be indistinguishable from my religious thoughts. How that all comes together is for another blog. Here are some topics to consider that I doubt we have all examined in correlation to our faith.

Should a Christian support abortion, capital punishment or homosexual marriage? Should a Christian support a capitalistic society, a communistic society, or theocratic society? Should a Christian be republican, democrat, or independent? Should Christians invest in animal rights, saving the ozone, or preserving endangered species? Should Christians support Affirmative Action, Welfare or Universal Healthcare? Should Christians attend public schools, be home schooled, or private schools? Before you answer any of these with a “yes” or “no” in your head I challenge you to consider how we can support our biased belief via scripture or how those topics do or do not align themselves with scripture. I dare not pronounce my preferences as Christian doctrine, nor my view of how Christians can best approach these issues as the only way we can consistency live our faith. I do ask which of these provide consistency with the Christian creeds and which provide direct conflict?

Response to Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

I was busy downloading as much material I possibly could to be prepared for the next year of absence from Youtube and Itunes when I came across a special jewel. I had some stimulating conversations with friends earlier in the day concerning the works Indoctrinate U and Expelled so my mind was already turning. I spent the last several nights keeping my late night entertainment limited to that of America and Britain's Got Talent shows, and watching clips of Happy Tree Friends and other funny videos.

Anyways, surfing away for more Ben Stein clips I come across Top 25 Creationist Fallacies in the ranks. I started watching, well because I don't really plan on sleeping and I need to ensure Itunes gets all the beginning Greek lessons downloaded as well as see what else I can grab for free. I write this as a point-by-point response to the video maker. It seems of better quality than typical and having watched the first several minutes, I am in a blogging mood.

If you so desire to watch this 23 minute video and read what I have to say I suggest you pause it at appropriate points. Then again it may be easier to open a separate tab/window to watch the video and scroll along the reading.

1. Foundational Bias: There is no doubt that Ken Ham is bias in his approach. Is that grounds to disqualify his ability to think and observe/interpret evidence at hand? We are all bias, how much we are willing to admit to it varies. Allow me to point to Richard Lewontin's Billions and Billions of Demons

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say 

anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

I dare not alter the text, it speaks for itself. Bias exists based on worldview, whether either party is willing to admit to that bias it varies from person to person regardless of the content of their bias. Ken Ham defined his bias being that of a biblical worldview which is explained in AIG's (Answers in Genesis) mission statement.

2. Straw Man Argument: Well explained, fairly useful summary of the fallacy, no argument until he uses the example. I have mentioned in previous blogs about my disagreements with Way of the Master and their rather anti-intellectual approach to evangelism. This happens to be a decent example; however, having seen the full episode it is not uncommon method that WOTM doesn't intellectually answer objections to faith. I suppose to setup a more correct setup would to spend more time to explain the Big Bang theory in greater depth. I personally have not found an issue with the concept "there was nothing and out of nothing there was an explosion that created everything"; because I believe God caused the explosion. While that might sound illogical to a materialist, I am satisfied because I believe in the supernatural. It seems easier to me to believe that out of nothing God created everything then out of nothing, nothing created/caused everything... or wait, am I just offering another straw man argument? Often, a Straw man can be interpreted as a poor summary.

3. Hasty Generalization: The document claiming to make the "hasty generalization" is the Dissent From Darwinism, which simply is an acknowledgement of various accredited/academic people whom state  

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." 

They define random mutation and natural selection as the exact topics of dissent because to contest evolution is careless and rather dangerous. There are many forms of evolution, the most basic textbook example will introduce evolution as "change over time", often exemplified in what is known as micro-evolution or variation. Micro-evolution seems to imply that new minute traits were expressed as a form of evolution while variation simply implies that the traits are expressed traits which had existed in the genetic code in which no new information was added. The verbiage of the Dissent document is precise to ensure no mistake in the claim. In those terms, what is so dangerous about questioning descent with modification doctrine and putting it under serious scrutiny? The document doesn't say they believe it is wrong, false or any other damning verbs, just that they are not certain and believe random mutation and natural selection should be examined. I would put money on it that Expelled will mention Micheal Behe's Darwin's Black Box which points out that there has never been serious scientific scrutiny applied to evolutionary theory at the academic level to explore the operation of natural selection or random mutation at the biochemical level. Michael Behe goes further to point out there has not been studies to confirm how complex operations such as eyesight, flagellum locomotion and many other cellular mechanisms.

4. Argument From Authority: I would be foolish to hope he wouldn't use Kent Hovind, while I dare not judge a man's faith his message implies a form of theocratic or anti-government political stance. Thus he was imprisoned for tax fraud in 2007, destroying much of his credibility. Dr. Hovind's credentials were that he has his doctorate in science and was a teacher for 15 years or so. While I wouldn't call this a lie it is not the full truth, as I recall it the degree was from a Christian organization not fully accredited and the degree was in Christian education. He taught at Christian schools. I do believe Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) used his credentials in a misleading way. Oh yea, his sidekick in the video clip is his son. I am not aware of any other creationists whom flagrantly use this fallacy. I am not fond of Kent Hovind's tone, style or behavior towards evolutionists, the evidence he presents regarding age of the Earth, Dinosaurs, and the pre-Flood Earth is interesting to say the least.

5. Ad Hominem: I wonder how many people are aware of the full title of Origin of Species; it is viewable at 5:04. If "races" was meant by "species" then why wouldn't the book have repeated species instead of using races? The video maker does not reference the claim; it is my interpretation that "races" was in reference to human races. At the most innocent level it would be a higher classification than species perhaps order or class. It is easy to claim Ad Hominem when one does not include the full argument. Since the Ken Ham clip was cut, it cannot be known if the argument was further developed. However, it is true that in the late 19th century eugenics was popularized. I cannot prove that Darwinist evolution is the directly responsible for the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century and possibly a motivating cause for the Holocaust, the two can logically go hand in hand. If humans are the result of higher development then eugenics are possibly a form of selective breeding? I would also like to point out that the first minute of the video was almost entirely ad Hominem attacks.

6. Ad Populum: Wow, he asserted that Truth exists... I am speechless. Not really, though rather surprised. Kent Hovind's example clip... yea shot down. I likely won't be too much help to Kent in the rest of this.

7. Quote Mining: He points out that Stephen Jay Gould's quote about a lack of transitional fossils as a fallacy? Allow me to attempt to summarize Dr. Gould's theory (I actually don't know if it was theory or hypothesis via the scientific method) of Punctuated Equilibrium. As I recall this was in response to the seeming explosion in the fossil records in which developed fossils of various species have been found in leaps and bounds. The phylogenetic tree has been used as an example from simple life to be linked as the common ancestor to major classes: mammals, reptiles, amphibians etcetera. The existence of transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals for instance, or lack thereof, was popularly explained in two manners. One, punctuated equilibrium which millions of micro-evolutionary changes built up over millions of years which lead to an explosion of development to produce new classes of creatures, this was also proposed as a response that micro-evolutionary changes which did not add up to gradual eyesight or fish evolving to amphibians. The other manner of arguing the lack of transitional fossils was suggesting that instead of a common ancestor, instead there were multiple fully developed common ancestors. This would resemble many central points in the phylogenetic tree image instead a single origin. The possibility of many common ancestors also matches with the Biblical account of creation in which it says God created animals according to their "kinds" such as dogs, cats, primates etc.

8. Man on the Street Interview: I can't conceive why Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron are being supposed as Top Creationists... they intellectually made fools of Christianity in the televised debate with Rational Response. What is sad, basic theology or apologetical training could have actually had them stand a chance instead of showing the world yet another example of the lack of intellectualism in the faith. There are educated answers, they just didn't give them. Perhaps I should revisit this debate at length, let me know if I should bother, these do take some time.

9. Non-Sequitur: Kirk was doing so good until he used the absurd picture... I shake my head. In my opinion to more eloquently pull off the ad absurdum argument he should establish a more believable example, such as the Archaeopteryx as the supposed feathered reptile when instead it has been classified as a bird.

10. Red Herring: Distraction technique with a boot? The argument seems logical. The claim: long time is required to make fossils. The response: a fossilized cowboy boot is offered as evidence that it does not take a long time to fossilize materials. Long time is often referred to in the millions of years, by giving the example of a fossilized boot it is implied that the boot did not take millions of years to fossilize effectively answering the claim.

11. Personal Incredulity: While the video clip does not explain the full complexity of the bacterial flagellum, the form of locomotion at the bacterial level observed by a biochemist, his book devotes one of the most painful chapters to read about the irreducibly complex system of the flagellum. It is easy to claim fallacies are being used when one uses 30 seconds of a clip as examples.

12. Argument from Ignorance: Interesting that this is titles Top 25 Fallacies when I have really only seen two credible Intelligent Design proponents. Note: Intelligent Design is not synonymous with Creationists. Intelligent Design is a much broader form of origins that isn't even Christianity specific. I question the example's credibility and authority when she is referenced as the "Orange Lady"; her established identity is based upon her tint on the video...

13. Violation of the Philosophy of Science: This is follows the hijacked definition of science being synonymous with materialism i.e. the supernatural does not exist. Scientifically speaking because the supernatural cannot be observed, tested, and repeated, which are the points required for the scientific method, science indeed cannot prove the supernatural. However, the scientific method cannot disprove the supernatural because if an event can be observed, tested, and repeated then it would be classified under the scientific method of natural order. Isn't that a Straw Man? As noted in the Billions and Billions of Demons excerpt, materialism is an a priori belief. Lee Strobel is simplifying Paley's teleological argument. Essentially by observing complex machines occurring in the natural world one can logically deduce that an intelligent being caused those machines.

12. Equivocation: I would agree many people confuse theory by definition of the scientific method versus definition of the American language. Theory is the result of supposed multiple tests and just before it is established as law. However, Theory maintains a fair amount of gray area still based upon the experiments that formed the hypothesis and eventually became the theory. I would also like to point out the unidentified Islamic gentlemen is not what I would consider to be one of the Top 25 Creationists.

13. False Dichotomy: The character presenting one of the theological arguments is exactly right. By the contradiction of circumstances such as sin and then death or death and then sin it does come down to one or the other. However, I advise this argument to only be used with other Christians because the authority of Scripture must be agreed upon.

14. Begging the Question: I have heard Begging the Question being more like Straw Man than circular reasoning, but let's have it. The example questioned is the astronomical first cause, much related to the Big Bang. The theological advantage of the Big Bang is that it proves that there was a first cause. While the Intelligent Design adherent can credit the Designer with causing the bang, the atheist/evolutionist cannot. They are stuck with nothing blew up into everything. The example was not begging the question but implied reasoning.

15: Tautology: The claim is that without gravity no complex atomic structures would exist. This is a butchered version of fine tuning in which there are something like 300+ independent extremely precise constants found in the world, be it the exact rotational axis of the Earth, its rotational speed, distance from the sun, at the planetary level, down to the molecular characteristics that water's solid state floats and hydrogen's extraordinary strong bonding force. The examples of fine tuning get much larger and smaller than planetary and molecular scales. The significance behind fine tuning is that if a single one of the independent variables was off by a slight fraction then no life at all would have been possible on earth. It is a more complex form of the Teleological Argument on the largest and smallest scales.

16. False Premise: The evidence that the Universe had a beginning comes from the Big Bang. The argument that the universe ever "not existed" claims that the universe is in the same state as it has always been. The counter to the claim is exemplified by the expanding universe, the burning of stars and such. Suggesting that the universe has always existed argues for infinite existence, which is not observable, measurable, testable, or repeatable. Often arguing for infinite existence is attempted by the philosophers not the astronomers. The only issue with infinite existence is that infinity does not exist in reality.

17. Ad Hoc Reasoning: Sadly Kent Hovind is skilled with Ad Hoc; however the Canopy Theory is established as part of the Hovind Theory. Before Kent Hovind introduces his theory he explains it is out on a limb. The Canopy Theory is such a long shot because it attempts to answer why scripturally it did not rain until the Flood, how people lived so much longer, or how many factors of the pre-Flood world were very different from the world we have today. To possibly accept the Canopy Theory one cannot honestly follow the scientific method because it is used as a means to explain the pre-Flood world, which has not been critically examined beyond the creationist community.

18. Slippery Slope: A less eloquent way of logically deducing purpose provided by the renowned VenomX. Understandable argument but does not belong as support for creationism; it is an unsympathetic explanation of human psychology.

19. Correlation Implies Causation: ummm yea, the causation is in his 5th or 6th DVD presentation which does not address creation. Actually as I recall that DVD is titled "The Evil of Evolution", I own a copy, while interesting conspiracy theory and more developed form of the Slippery Slope argument, not effective in arguing for creation, used as a scare tactic against evolution. The variables mentioned are far too broad over far too much time to effectively or scientifically connect the dots.

20. Creative Math: Random is described as an unguided process following no order, correct me if I am wrong but if Natural Selection is an intelligent process wouldn't that be Intelligent Design? The evolutionary version of natural selection is blindfolded; if not then it is an active force of an unknown intelligence. Random mutations are just that, random.

21. Moving The Goalposts: While I know there are many unsatisfied people out there that think they have met the Kent Hovind challenge they are not the ones that made the rules. It is a rather lofty challenge the Kent Hovind setup, but the criterion for attaining the 250k is impossible to reach from his standard. The real issue at hand is that Kent requires evidence that proves evolution to be true in its present form not providing examples and arguments because any argument can be refuted. The Ali G example as his character ought not to be taken seriously and it also falls under the Correlation Implies Causation fallacy.

22. Just Plain Nonsense: When the heading is Ad Hominem in nature it cannot be refuted or rebutted because no argument has been presented. While I disagree with much of Kent Hovind's styles and attitudes the evidence he offers is unparalleled for some of his arguments, such as that dinosaurs are still living on earth today.

23. Outright Lie: If one has studied the curve in the recent 15 years there has been growing dissention with evolution and a growing popularity of ID theory. Calling the change in views an outright lie is more propagandist and suppressionist than any ID theorist I have seen. For a claiming Christian to lie about something they know to be false requires them to be especially evil because the foundations of the belief is founded on Truth and honesty. If one needs to lie to believe in their faith their faith is worthless.

I was almost audibly laughing the way the video ends with "make up your own mind". The video maker clearly did not approach the project with an open mind nor did he attempt to understand the positions or arguments of creationists. This was proven from the first minute of pure attacks upon creationists. The video maker never produced counter arguments or evidence just attempted poor rhetoric to poor examples of creationism. When I started this blog I was expecting some notable figures and arguments, there were two points, one Ken Ham and the other Michael Behe, however, Michael Behe is not a proclaimed creationist he is an ID advocate. This is yet another example of a poor response to creation theory.