How do you know? Were you there?
m (→Dear Emma B) |
m (→General conclusions) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
{{cquote|'''''<big>No, and neither were you.</big>'''''}} | {{cquote|'''''<big>No, and neither were you.</big>'''''}} | ||
| − | The status of this phrase as a [[creationist escape hatch]] lies in the fact that it is a self-contradicting, thought-terminating cliché. It is a mindless refrain which shouldn't be taken seriously. Much of our knowledge is about things which are too big or too little, too fast or too slow, too distant or otherwise inaccessible, to be directly observed. Indeed, the real power of [[science]] comes from our ability to know about things that are directly and indirectly observable through instruments that are much better calibrated for the intended observation than | + | The status of this phrase as a [[creationist escape hatch]] lies in the fact that it is a self-contradicting, thought-terminating cliché. It is a mindless refrain which shouldn't be taken seriously. Much of our knowledge is about things which are too big or too little, too fast or too slow, too distant or otherwise inaccessible, to be directly observed. Indeed, the real power of [[science]] comes from our ability to know about things that are directly and indirectly observable through instruments that are much better calibrated for the intended observation than the unaided eye! This is how [[scientific theories]] work: by building up a chain of causality from what the theory predicts, to what indirect evidence it produces and then what ''direct'' evidence that indirect evidence will manifest as. This can be looking at fossils to gather evidence about what creatures lived millions of years ago, or it can be looking at what lines and squiggles will appear on a computer screen to show the existence of the [[Higgs boson]]. |
===AIG response=== | ===AIG response=== | ||
| − | The above is a valid argument against the "were you there?" question. However, [[Answers in Genesis]] | + | The above is a valid argument against the "were you there?" question. However, [[Answers in Genesis]] does have one [[escape hatch]] argument left to avoid it.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/07/15/feedback-were-you-there Answers in Genesis - Were you there]</ref> |
{{cquote|When teaching children, we tell them they should politely ask the question “Were you there?” when talking to someone who believes in millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution. If someone replies by asking the same question, as you have done, we say, “No we weren’t there, but we know Someone who was there, Someone who cannot lie, who knows everything, and has always existed. And this One has revealed to us what happened in the past in His history book called the Bible. Are you interested in reading God’s history book to find out what the Word of One who was there tells us about the true history of the world?”}} | {{cquote|When teaching children, we tell them they should politely ask the question “Were you there?” when talking to someone who believes in millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution. If someone replies by asking the same question, as you have done, we say, “No we weren’t there, but we know Someone who was there, Someone who cannot lie, who knows everything, and has always existed. And this One has revealed to us what happened in the past in His history book called the Bible. Are you interested in reading God’s history book to find out what the Word of One who was there tells us about the true history of the world?”}} | ||
| − | We can count up the false arguments here. Firstly, it offers no actual proof | + | We can count up the false arguments here. Firstly, it offers no actual proof; it's merely [[argument by assertion]]. Secondly, it still conflates actual [[evidence]] with hearsay and uncorroborated eyewitness testimony—whether it's God, Jesus or the authors of the Bible—this alone proves nothing. Thirdly, it's simple [[special pleading]] that their indirect evidence is right but an "[[evolutionist]]'s" isn't. Fourthly, it's just a plain and simple cop-out akin to "my mate Dave down the pub said...". |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 23:45, 6 July 2012
| Goddidit! |
| Key claims |
| Science |
| Random articles |
"How do you know? Were you there?" is a summary dismissal of evolution and "Old Earth" science used by some creationists.[1] It is a form of escape hatch used to question any evidence that isn't in line with YEC beliefs. The thinking behind it is that if we cannot personally verify what we've inferred from evidence (because travelling back in time is impossible) then we cannot be certain of facts and theories when it comes to describing the world as it was millions of years ago. In the usual creationist model of the world of evidence, uncertainty like this means that the world must be young.
Contents |
Assumptions
When considering historical evidence first-hand accounts (primary sources) are generally taken as better evidence than second or third-hand accounts and those written down long after the fact. However, this is a mere guideline and the first-hand accounts can often be subject to greater bias. The presumption of "How do you know? Were you there?" seems to be that only first-hand, eyewitness testimony is reliable - and so it is illegitimate to make inferences about things beyond our immediate observations. This assumption is notably odd given our attitudes to personal accounts in other areas of life. In a court of law, for example, eyewitness testimony is considered relatively weak evidence compared to physical evidence (from DNA or CCTV footage) because people can lie, exaggerate or forget events, and contradictions can mount when multiple stories conflict. It is also very unlikely that one would believe extraordinary claims by word-of-mouth and an eyewitness statement alone. Therefore it is not valid to say that because someone was not personally present that they cannot make a very informed and very accurate appraisal of a situation given other evidence.
Contradictions
The obvious contradiction here is that anyone using this argument also wasn't there to see the event. If one were to reply "Yes, I was there—prove me wrong", the same logic about first-hand accounts being the only valid form of evidence would leave the other unable to disprove that one was there. In contrast, "holy" books are often taken as gospel truth, being written by eyewitnesses. But how does the True Believer that might use this statement know that it is eyewitness testimony when they weren't there when the testimony was given? Indeed, who could have even been the eyewitnesses during creation week[2]?
Dear Emma B
In June 2011, Ken Ham got all impressed and gloating[3] over one of his brainwashed minions school-age followers[4] supposedly asking the "were you there" question of a NASA scientist who was talking about multi-million year old Moon rock.[5] Ham himself was very smug over the situation, stating how atheists always went ballistic over incidents like this—although not without good reason; most atheists, freethinkers and rationalists view Ken Ham's brainwashing of young children to be outright horrifying. PZ Myers wrote a lengthy open letter to Emma B, the girl in question, covering in detail exactly how the scientist did know.[6] He sums up the main problem with the "were you there?" component of this loaded question as follows:
“”One serious problem with the "Were you there?" question is that it is not very sincere. You knew the answer already! You knew that woman had not been to the moon, and you definitely knew that she had not been around to see the rock forming 3.75 billion years ago. You knew the only answer she could give was "no," which is not very informative.
|
The take-home message from this is simple: "how do you know?" is far more interesting than "were you there?".
General conclusions
“”No, and neither were you.
|
The status of this phrase as a creationist escape hatch lies in the fact that it is a self-contradicting, thought-terminating cliché. It is a mindless refrain which shouldn't be taken seriously. Much of our knowledge is about things which are too big or too little, too fast or too slow, too distant or otherwise inaccessible, to be directly observed. Indeed, the real power of science comes from our ability to know about things that are directly and indirectly observable through instruments that are much better calibrated for the intended observation than the unaided eye! This is how scientific theories work: by building up a chain of causality from what the theory predicts, to what indirect evidence it produces and then what direct evidence that indirect evidence will manifest as. This can be looking at fossils to gather evidence about what creatures lived millions of years ago, or it can be looking at what lines and squiggles will appear on a computer screen to show the existence of the Higgs boson.
AIG response
The above is a valid argument against the "were you there?" question. However, Answers in Genesis does have one escape hatch argument left to avoid it.[7]
“”When teaching children, we tell them they should politely ask the question “Were you there?” when talking to someone who believes in millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution. If someone replies by asking the same question, as you have done, we say, “No we weren’t there, but we know Someone who was there, Someone who cannot lie, who knows everything, and has always existed. And this One has revealed to us what happened in the past in His history book called the Bible. Are you interested in reading God’s history book to find out what the Word of One who was there tells us about the true history of the world?”
|
We can count up the false arguments here. Firstly, it offers no actual proof; it's merely argument by assertion. Secondly, it still conflates actual evidence with hearsay and uncorroborated eyewitness testimony—whether it's God, Jesus or the authors of the Bible—this alone proves nothing. Thirdly, it's simple special pleading that their indirect evidence is right but an "evolutionist's" isn't. Fourthly, it's just a plain and simple cop-out akin to "my mate Dave down the pub said...".
See also
External links
- Were You There? by Kenneth Ham, Institute for Creation Research
- Claim CA 221 Index to Creationist Claims at TalkOrigins Archive, edited by Mark Isaak
Footnotes
- ↑ An example of its use
- ↑ Even if you count Adam being there involved in naming animals and stuff, whatever he had written will be incomprehensible after the Tower of Babel, If he even had anything written down.
- ↑ Their Own Version of a Big Bang, by the LA Times
- ↑ There is no word that makes this not sound creepy.
- ↑ 9 Year-old challenges NASA
- ↑ Pharyngula - Dear Emma B
- ↑ Answers in Genesis - Were you there