Here we go again - Lisle has crawled over my main post of yesterday:
HIM:
Dear All
Jason has been telling people what I think again. He obviously must fear…
[Dr. Lisle: “He obviously must fear” – Ashley is telling people what I think again. Interesting.]
…either that his followers cannot form their own opinions of me or that they will form an opinion that he would prefer them not to form.
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a bifurcation fallacy. In reality, I’m just responding to false claims (like the above claim) and pointing out fallacies. Ashley’s comments provide a wonderful opportunity for people to brush up on their fallacy-detection skills.]
Unfortunately, in this latest example or projection (like the ones where he implied that I know little about either science or about young Earth creationist claims) – he was completely wrong again.
[Ashley has amply demonstrated his ignorance of science and creationist claims. His posts about the flood are fantastic examples of this. I’ll give more details below. By the way, I’m not trying to be mean. But if Ashley is going to criticize others for allegedly not understanding science, then he really should learn something about it.]
What am I referring to you may ask?
Jason wrote earlier today (as an insert within one of my posts as usual – one timed at 7.00 pm on 20 April):
““Why is Ashley afraid to respond here?”
This accusation refers to my rebuttals of some of his many attacks against my posts…
[Dr. Lisle: Again, I’m just pointing out false claims and logical fallacies. Nothing more.]
, which – for reasons of convenience and nothing else – I posted late on Friday at the new BCSE community forum thread alongside reproductions of my various posts here which Jason has ‘edited’.
[Again, none of Ashley’s posts were ‘edited’, unless you count the removal of his unethical character attacks on another blog visitor – and that was clearly identified as such. All of Ashley’s other posts are left untouched. I’ve graciously allowed him to post his rhetoric on my website, even though I’m under no obligation to allow such – this is my blog after all.]
It is self-evident that THIS thread has become rather unwieldy (even in an evolutionist worldview). How was I supposed to reply directly to Jason here when he did not actually make new posts directed at me but instead inserted negative ‘commentaries’ within my posts? (And often when I make a new post it appears way BELOW the post I was addressing.)
[Dr. Lisle: It’s rather easy. Just copy the section you want to respond to, and post it along with your comments at the very bottom. You can use html code such as bold or italics to separate your words from the person you are replying to, or quotes (though apparently WordPress will not allow guests to use color codes.)]
This again is the BCSE thread (THIS post will be added there):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=15Below are the rebuttals, as taken from the BCSE thread (in the order in which they appear). If you need to see WHICH exact Lisle comment I am addressing you will need to refer to the other thread. Sorry, if this means looking at two websites for the complete picture. But my time to address all Jason’s false or irrelevant claims about me is NOT unlimited. And I am trying to keep this post as short and readable as possible.
BRIEF COMMENTS ON LISLE’S CLAIMS
- Scientists reason from ‘an ultimate standard’ that is not God’s Word. Thus Lisle DID imply that their reasoning is arbitrary. I did not misrepresent nor pretend to be quoting him;
[Dr. Lisle: No. Only if evolution were true would science be arbitrary, because there would be no justification for the preconditions of intelligibility. But evolution isn’t true. Creation is, therefore science is not arbitrary. I really wish Ashley would stop misrepresenting me here. Ah well.]
- “You’ll notice that we creationists have good reasons for our position. Evolutionists don’t. And that’s the point. Ashley continues to demonstrate this.” You would NEVER be satisfied, Jason;
[Dr. Lisle: I’m perfectly satisfied that evolutionists don’t have good reasons for their beliefs. Ashley has demonstrated this repeatedly. I ask a simple question like why it is wrong to lie, and the answer I get is that it just is. Evolutionism is arbitrary.]
- “Naturalism is incompatible with science, because science requires uniformity, and naturalism cannot justify uniformity.” What drivel. The theory of evolution, part of science, assumes both naturalism and – where the evidence observed today points to such – uniformity (and uniformitarianism);
[Dr. Lisle: First, evolution isn’t really a theory, because a theory has some supporting evidence. Evolution is really an unsubstantiated conjecture. Is it “part of science” as Ashley claims? Being very generous to our critics, I suppose we could call evolution a ‘model’ in the scientific sense of a mental construct that attempts to explain some aspect of the universe, albeit a rather unhelpful one.]
[I want to take some time on this one, because it is at the heart of the issue. Does science presuppose naturalism? Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that there is – everything that exists is matter (or energy) in motion. Ashley is correct that evolution is predicated on this assumption. But is science? Well no. Although the methods of science are not equipped perhaps to study supernatural phenomena, there is nothing about the scientific method that requires the non-existence of supernatural phenomena. Just as laws of mathematics are not equipped to address moral claims, yet they do not disprove the existence of morality.]
[Does science require uniformity in nature? Yes! And not just “where the evidence observed today points to such” as Ashley stated. All scientific observations presuppose that the universe operates in a regular fashion, at least most of the time if not all of the time. Our visual observations presuppose that light (normally) travels in straight paths, as one example. Experimentation would be utterly useless if the universe had no uniformity; there would be no consistency, no patterns to uncover.]
[Can we have confidence that such uniformity extends to unobserved, unexperienced, regions of the universe, and future times? Science requires this to be true in order to function. But is such a belief warranted? Do we have a good reason for it? If creation is true, then yes. God is sovereign over the entire universe, even unobserved regions, and He has promised to uphold the future universe like the past universe (e.g. Genesis 8:22). Therefore, we creationists have a logical basis for uniformity, and therefore we can have confidence in science. But if evolution were true, and Genesis is false or mere allegory, then what is the basis for assuming uniformity in unexperienced regions or future times? It does no good to say that we have uniformity in the past and in observed regions, because this would be utterly irrelevant to future times or unobserved regions unless we already had a good reason to believe in uniformity. Therefore, although scientific procedures may not be equipped to study the supernatural realm, they require the existence of the biblical God in order to be logically justified! Science would be meaningless in a chance universe.]
[And what about uniformitarianism? This is the belief that rates and conditions are generally constant, such that Earth’s features have been generated (for the most part) at their present slow rates, presumably over long periods of time. Evolution does presuppose uniformitarianism. But there is nothing in science that requires it. The methods of science presuppose that laws of nature do not arbitrarily change, but they do allow conditions to change drastically. As one example, the rate at which Rhenium decays into Osmium can vary by a factor of billion depending on the ionization state of the atoms, but the laws of physics remain the same. We know that rates can vary by enormous amounts depending on the conditions. Yet evolutionists often assume constancy of rates, without any compelling reasons. This is arbitrary.]
- “Evolution is not compatible with the notion of universal invariant laws of mathematics”. Unsupported, arbitrary assertion and part of Jason’s ‘rhetoric’.
[Actually, I did provide reasons, and have even written an article on this:
http://www.youroriginsmatter.com/conver ... ry-math/95.
Evolution requires change, but laws of mathematics do not change. They are opposites, and so I want to know how evolutionists can justify invariant laws in an ever-changing universe. How could anyone possibly know that anything is truly universal and invariant apart from God’s Word? However, I want to commend Ashley for pointing out what he thought was an unsupported arbitrary assertion – indeed if it had been, it would be perfectly rational to point it out and dismiss it as unwarranted.]
Brief comments on Lisle’s rather ridiculous claims:
- “The circular nature of Ashley’s reasoning is easily exposed.” There wasn’t any;
[Well, now we’re back to arbitrary claims I see. The context of this quote was where Ashley was trying to argue against the worldwide flood by pointing out that organisms that are considered to be older by evolutionists are found lower in the geologic column than those that are younger. But if the worldwide flood really happened, then these organisms were buried within the same year. By assuming the evolutionist’s assigned age, Ashley had already tacitly assumed that there was no worldwide flood. He then used this as evidence against the worldwide flood. This of course begs the question. Ashley’s reasoning is circular. By the way, how do evolutionists estimate which organisms are the older ones? They assume that those found in deeper layers are older. So it shouldn’t be surprising that they find ‘older’ fossils in lower layers, since lower layers are presumed to be the oldest. The reasoning is clearly circular.]
- “This is another straw-man argument. Creationists would not expect rabbits, for example, to be found in the lowest geologic layers for this obvious reason: rabbits don’t live on the ocean floor”. NO, it was a QUESTION (not a denial) Jason. Calm down. If places on LAND have more than one fossil-containing rock layer, we would expect to see mammals in both upper and lower layers if Noah’s (recent) flood had happened – but we DON’T. Talk of rabbits not living on the ocean floor is simply MUDDYING THE WATERS (pun unintended);
[No – this is a straw-man argument because this is not what creationists would expect. All fossils are found on land, even those of marine organisms. Ashley seems to be assuming that land levels have never changed, but neither creationists nor evolutionists believe that. We do not find terrestrial fossils in the lower parts of the geologic column, because the lower parts of the geologic column contain fossils only of ocean dwelling organisms.]
- “Apes (note: not “ape-like creatures”, but rather “apes”) and birds are found only in the higher positions in the geologic column”. Yes – and THAT supports evolution and an old Earth, not the Bible. In addition, Jason has misunderstood me.
[No – it confirms creation. Organisms that live in higher ecological zones, and are more mobile, would be buried higher in a worldwide flood – and this is exactly what we find.]
My comment in question referred to higher ALTITUDE. Does he think I am stupid?;
[I suspected that Ashley doesn’t understand the geologic column, and this confirms it. No, organisms in any portion of the geologic column can be found at virtually any altitude today. There are marine fossils on the highest mountain tops. And fossilized birds can be found at lower altitudes. Cambrian strata, as one example, are not found at the same altitudes throughout the world because of tectonic activity. The elevation of any particular piece of land today is not necessarily what it was before the flood.]
- “Hardly. Lower areas are generally flooded before higher areas. It’s pretty hard to argue against that”. Are you being wilfully dishonest Jason? Or just incompetent? Re-read my words. I did NOT say “lower areas”;
[Ashley was responding to the AiG claim that “Those things in habitats first to be overwhelmed would generally occupy lower positions in the geologic column.” That’s right, “lower positions.” Ashley responded, “that makes little sense.” In fact, it makes perfect sense that organisms buried first in the flood would be those in lower positions in the geologic column. Ashley’s objection makes no sense.]
- “Ashley again misrepresents what Creationists teach”. I did NO such thing. I merely made a FACTUAL statement (but I note Jason’s implied admission that YECs teach falsehoods – I already knew this);
[In context, this was in response to Ashley’s claim that “Surely what would matter more would be altitude (the same then as now).” But creationists do not teach that altitude (in the sense of elevation from sea level) of rocks has always been the same. By the way, neither do evolutionists. Ashley’s claim was simply false.]
[Ashley made another false claim here in saying that I somehow admitted that “YECs teach falsehoods.” Where I did say or even remotely imply that? Of course, in an evolutionary universe, why shouldn’t they? Morality presupposes a creationist worldview.]
- “Note that Ashley continues to expose his suppressed knowledge of God by having confidence in science, which only makes sense in a Christian worldview.” So why are YECs so ANTAGONISTIC towards science?
[This is the fallacy of the complex question, since creationists are not antagonistic towards science. It’s also a red herring fallacy. Ashley was unable to rationally answer the argument put to him, so he changes the subject, and suggests that YECs are antagonistic toward science. However, I am not aware of a single biblical creationist who is against science. Most of the ones I know have a Ph.D. in science.]
Comments on Lisle.
- “he seems to think that creationists are against real science”. They frequently are;
[Once again Ashley provides no evidence to back up his (false) claim.]
- “I’m inclined to think that Ashley really doesn’t want to believe in creation for emotional reasons rather than legitimate logical reasons.” It’s BOTH, Jason;
[We’ve seen Ashley’s emotional reaction. But we haven’t seen him put forward any logical reasons yet.]
- “No one has ever rejected the claims of Christianity for logical reasons.” Jason is assuming that the science which YECs reject is ‘illogical’;
[Actually, I’m not aware of any science that creationists reject. There are false claims that we reject, but not science. In any case, I have yet to hear or read a logical objection to Christianity.]
- “I’m not convinced that Ashley has studied science properly at all, given his previous claims”. Since I know that I HAVE, as my friends and people on the BCSE site could confirm, this tells me that Jason is not interested in truth just in propaganda and stereotyping of his critics.
[“is not interested in truth just in propaganda and stereotyping of his critics.” – oh the irony. Notice that Ashley appeals to his friends and people on the BCSE to indicate that he knows science, many of whom undoubtedly share his lack of education. I would be far more impressed if he actually got some education in science, say a Ph.D. in a branch of science from a major university. In any case, Ashley’s misunderstanding of the geologic column, of the nature of science, and so on amply demonstrate that he really hasn’t studied this subject very much. I’m not trying to be mean-spirited, it’s just pretty obvious to all of us who have studied science.]
They look at evidence alone, assuming that what they see means something – they DON’T also look at religious texts like the YECs do.
[In “assuming that what they see means something” they are not relying on evidence alone, but are relying on a worldview. In a chance universe, there would be no reason to think that evidence means anything. There would be no reason to rely on our senses, or our mind, or any physical evidence at all. Science presupposes a Christian worldview.]
[Also, is it rational for a scientist to ignore recorded history when attempting to reconstruct a past event? Ashley admits that evolutionists don’t rely on “religious texts,” but if they reject the recorded history in the Bible and choose to rely on guesswork instead, then that’s really illogical.]
They operate on naturalism
[Well, that’s not “evidence alone” since naturalism is a belief that nature is all that there is. We’ve already seen that naturalism would make science unjustified and meaningless, so I won’t repeat the argument here.]
(that is silent on the existence of God as God apparently does ‘natural’ things).
[Actually, naturalism denies the existence of the biblical God. This is because naturalism is the belief that nature is all there is, but the biblical God is not part of nature; He is transcendent.]
And they don’t always assume uniformitarianism.
[That’s actually true. I have found that evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when it gives them the answers they want, and reject it otherwise. This of course is arbitrary (and inconsistent). All arguments for an old earth do assume uniformitarianism.]
BRIEF COMMENTS ON LISLE
- “People visiting this blog might think that Ashley is a fictional person that I made up to make the evolutionists look bad – by pretending to be an evolutionist and posting absurd arguments full of logical fallacies and demonstrably false claims, making it look like evolutionists have a problem with basic reading comprehension.” And your evidence for this claim is precisely WHAT, Jason? Kindly Put Up or Shut Up;
[The evidence would be that Ashley commits almost every fallacy that I’ve written about in my book “Discerning Truth.” His fallacy of complex question, “why are YECs so ANTAGONISTIC towards science?” is almost verbatim from page 39. His reification fallacies involving what “science says” are from page 16. His equivocation with science and evolution is right from page 22. His attempt to justify uniformity by assuming it is right from page 30. Ashley’s multiple question-begging epithets could have been taken right from page 36. The ad hominem attacks could be right from page 50. Ashley’s faulty appeals to authority is almost verbatim from page 57. The straw-man attacks are nearly identical to those listed on pate 62. His No True Scotsman fallacies are right from page 78. It’s almost as if I took all those fallacies, and then posted them pretending to be an evolutionist, as if to show people, “yes evolutionists really do commit all sorts of errors in reasoning.” Trolling happens. I just wanted people to know that this is not the case here.]
- “Why would anyone want to try to publish a science paper in a religious journal that is only peer-reviewed by evolutionists? Since evolution would render science foundationless, it makes no sense”. I suggest that you would TRY if you thought you had a disproof of evolution and something which would convert people to fundamentalist Christianity – but all you have is your apologetics;
[Apologetics IS as disproof of evolution. But people are not always persuaded even by a perfectly good argument. Ashley has demonstrated this. He cannot refute the fact that only the Christian worldview can justify laws of logic, laws of morality, laws of nature, and their properties. Yet he continues to deny the Christian worldview. Why?]
[The Bible gives us the answer. The Bible tells us that God has revealed himself inescapably to all people, such that there is no excuse for denying creation (Romans 1:19-20). But people do not want to accept a God who is rightly angry at them for their sin. So they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).]
- “How does he know – on his worldview – that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging?” The question is STUPID;
[Ashley’s response is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. Ashley does assume that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging. But he cannot justify that belief on his own worldview. He cannot answer the question, so he arbitrarily dismisses it. Only the Christian worldview can make sense of such things. But Ashley would prefer to live in darkness rather than light (John 3:19).]
- “It appears that he is indeed quite indoctrinated with evolutionism/naturalism.” Said the anti-science fundamentalist.
[Another question-begging epithet fallacy. Also a straw-man argument. I have an earned doctorate in science, and my worldview can make sense of science.]
Brief comment on Lisle’s false allegations.
- “I can’t answer that question. It’s too hard. So I’m going to call it an ‘idiot question’ and hope that no one notices”. You are a LIAR, Jason. It WAS an idiot question.
[Actually, Robert had won the debate by pointing out that Ashley’s position is self-contradictory. Ashley simultaneously indicated that we should go with what the majority of scientists believe, and we should not go with what the majority of scientists believe. Robert was graciously giving Ashley the opportunity to explain under what circumstances should we accept the opinions of the majority of scientists, and under what circumstances we should not. Ashley could not answer Robert’s question. Check it out above, beginning with Robert’s post, “Ashley, To clarify your position,…”]
[Of course, Ashley also commits the abusive ad hominem fallacy. But for the sake of argument, why in his worldview would lying be wrong? Why would it be unacceptable for one bag of chemicals to mislead another bag of chemicals? Ashley hasn’t been able to provide a reason for this so far. But rational people have a reason for their beliefs.]
I have already explained WHY on the BCSE site, and linked to the BCSE site on Jason’s site. On 13 April I wrote on the BCSE site that it appeared that Robert was being “deliberately obtuse”
[Hardly. Robert’s question was profound because it exposed the self-contradictory nature of Ashley’s worldview. Namely, we are supposed to accept what the majority of scientists, except when we’re not supposed to do that. It was perfectly legitimate to ask, “when should we accept the scientific consensus, and when should we reject it?” Ashley cannot answer that simple question, so he merely engages in emotional rhetoric.]
and added “The opinion that Earth was flat was pre-scientific – I cannot believe he is such an idiot not to realise that”;
[{Sigh.} More abusive ad hominem fallacies.]
- Jason’s talk of ‘character assassination’ is utter hypocrisy given his comments in square brackets.
[Here Ashley commits the tu quoque fallacy. A character assassination would be like saying “Ashley is a LIAR and a bigot.” I don’t think I’ve said anything like that. I believe that Ashley is mistaken of course. But that’s not a character assassination.]
JASON’S COMMENTS HERE ARE SOME OF HIS MOST UNPLEASANT
- “I do allow guests to comment on my blog, but they must behave themselves and not act like a 2-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.” YECs are more interested in demonising their critics than in discussing science;
[Irony. Ashley is the one engaging in abusive ad hominem attacks. The creationists who have responded to him on this site have been far better-behaved. Is it really too much to ask Ashley to behave himself when posting on this blog, and not to engage in childish name-calling?]
- “Here Ashley reveals his ignorance of physics. In fact, scientists have proved that decay rates can be changed by a factor of a billion or more under certain circumstances, such as bound state beta decay. Moreover, we have compelling evidence that this has in fact been the case in the past. Ashley would have known this if he bothered to study what it is he argues against.” I am not as clever as you, Jason, but I HAVE studied science and I HAVE studied YEC claims – for years. See my review of Sarfati’s ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth’ at Amazon.com. YECs have NO evidence whatsoever that radioactive decay rates could or did change ie accelerate vastly in the particular way they REQUIRE around 4,300 years or so ago WITHOUT rendering the Earth UNINHABITABLE. None;
[Actually, there is abundant evidence that radioactive decay rates can change (like the fact that we’ve been able to speed up radioactive decay in the laboratory by a factor of a billion). And there is abundant evidence that this has happened in the past, such as the fact that we find abundant helium (the bi-product of alpha decay) in rock layers where the helium would have had plenty of time to escape if it had been there for billions of years. This shows that (1) lots of radioactive decay has happened and (2) it has happened in the geologically ‘recent’ past. Regarding habitability, it’s not a problem because most of the accelerated decay happened early in the creation week before life, or during the flood year when organisms would have been insulated from radioactivity by a mile of water. So Ashley’s claim is unwarranted. If Ashley (or others) would like to learn about the research that confirms this, I recommend the RATE books, volume I and II, or the layman-level summary: Thousands not Billions.]
- “attacking real scientists (creation scientists like me)…”. The only people who think Jason is a ‘real scientist’ are other ‘creation scientists’ – those who reject SWATHES of science;
[This again is the No True Scotsman fallacy. And Ashley’s claim is demonstrably false. As far as I know, all my professors at the University of Colorado are not biblical creationists, and yet I did very well in their classes, and they agreed that my scientific research was excellent, and that I had earned a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Ashley also repeats his false claim that creationists reject swathes of science. I’m not aware of any creationist who rejects science.]
- “So we are left to wonder why Ashley thought this didn’t fit with Scripture”. I thought you were a clever astronomer/cosmologist, Jason. Stars do NOT go supernova after just 6,000 years of existence.
[Sure they do. What made Ashley think otherwise? Can Ashley answer that without begging the question (assuming evolutionist assumptions in order to prove them)?]
COMMENTS ON LISLE
- “Can we expect the same level of argumentation there as Ashley has presented here? If so, then it may be a time-waster.” You are very good at the propaganda, Jason.
[Now there’s an ironic claim if ever there was one. I’ve backed up my claims with rational reasons. Has Ashley?]
But I am sorry to inform you that Micah DID read it. Others may have done so too.
[That’s fine. I trust that anyone trained in logic will be able to evaluate Ashley’s claims for what they are.]
Perhaps your followers are more open-minded than you?
[If only we were all as open-minded as Ashley.

]
- “Again, Ashley provides no support for his claim”. My clearly expressed words were misunderstood (it happens). But – unlike you Jason – the person I addressed appears honest, and subsequently admitted that he had misread my words;
[In context, this was a reference to Ashley’s claim that “[creationists] are deluded.” He didn’t provide any support for that claim. It was arbitrary, which is irrational.]
- “He says “it just is”.” That WAS my answer, Jason. Deal with it;
[Arbitrariness is not rational. If we allow arbitrariness in debates, then Creation is true. Why? It just is – deal with it. Ashley has amply demonstrated that he doesn’t have any good reasons for his position. He says it just is that way, and we’re apparently supposed to accept that response. To be arbitrary in a debate is to concede defeat.]
- “We love science”. Creation science is not science.
[{sigh} Another No True Scotsman fallacy.]
COMMENT
Lisle claims to ‘love’ science but all he has done is accuse me of fallacies and being arbitrary – BEHIND MY BACK.
[Ashley commits lots of fallacies and is arbitrary. Why is he angry at me for pointing it out? And none of this was done “behind [Ashley’s] back.” It’s not like I’ve posted this on another website. It’s here for all to see, including Ashley.]
I trust that Jason is satisfied that I have now been ‘upfront’ and overcome my ‘fear’ of posting my response on this website.
[Yes Ashley. Thank you for posting.]