Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Nye's Argumentative Fallacy: No True Scotsman


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

#1
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,826 posts
Nye vs. Ham Debate: No True Scotsman by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

http://www.icr.org/article/7897/

 

A surprisingly large number of people—some three million—watched live online February 4 as debaters discussed the topic “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ken Ham took the affirmative position while “Science Guy” Bill Nye took the negative. During the debate, Nye’s use of a certain fallacy was soon evident, and viewers should beware of this tactic because of the subtle way it can skew perception.

 

Each time Nye contrasted “Ken Ham’s creation model” of a young world with “us in the scientific community,” he committed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle wrote in Discerning Truth that this fallacy is committed “when an arguer defines a term in a biased way to protect his argument from rebuttals.”1

 

The informal fallacy’s name comes from an imaginary conversation in which a Scotsman claims that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. A bystander replies that he, too, is from Scotland but does put sugar on his porridge. The first Scotsman rejoins, “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

 

What did he do? He essentially redefined the word Scotsman to insulate his argument against virtually any example that refutes it.

The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists—by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.

 

The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes. But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.

 

Nye was wrong to assume that no real scientist could ever hold the creation model, since scores of real scientists have and do. This is amply demonstrated in books like In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation and The Genesis Files, containing 22 interviews with Ph.D. scientists who ascribe to Ham’s creation model and tell their stories.2,3 And of course, early creation scientists forged the paths of each of today’s major scientific branches of inquiry, like Isaac Newton’s physics,4 Matthew Maury’s oceanography, Louis Pasteur’s immunology,5 Michael Faraday’s electromagnetism,6 and George Carver’s agriculture.7,8 Are we to believe that Newton and Pasteur were not real scientists?

 

Apparently, facts like these do not matter to someone who is so fully committed to the false idea that real scientists only believe in evolution that he is more than willing to adjust the very definition of scientist to preserve his argument.

 

The fictional Scotsman who actually does put sugar on his porridge was willing to present and perhaps even demonstrate his case. In the same way, a minority of true scientists are willing and prepared to make their cases for biblical and scientific creation. Why would anyone even feel the need to protect their anti-creation definition of scientist with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy unless the evidence for recent creation that believing scientists are prepared to present constitutes a real threat?

 

References

  1. Lisle, J. 2010. Discerning Truth. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 134.
  2. Ashton, J., ed. 2001. In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
  3. Wieland, C., ed. 2004. The Genesis Files. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
  4. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton. Acts & Facts. 37 (5): 8.
  5. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Louis Pasteur. Acts & Facts. 37 (11): 8.
  6. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Michael Faraday. Acts & Facts. 37 (8): 8.
  7. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: George Washington Carver. Act & Facts. 37 (12): 8.
  8. Morris, H. 1982. Men of Science, Men of God. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.


#2
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,742 posts

Nye vs. Ham Debate: No True Scotsman by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

http://www.icr.org/article/7897/

 

A surprisingly large number of people—some three million—watched live online February 4 as debaters discussed the topic “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ken Ham took the affirmative position while “Science Guy” Bill Nye took the negative. During the debate, Nye’s use of a certain fallacy was soon evident, and viewers should beware of this tactic because of the subtle way it can skew perception.

 

Each time Nye contrasted “Ken Ham’s creation model” of a young world with “us in the scientific community,” he committed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle wrote in Discerning Truth that this fallacy is committed “when an arguer defines a term in a biased way to protect his argument from rebuttals.”1

 

The informal fallacy’s name comes from an imaginary conversation in which a Scotsman claims that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. A bystander replies that he, too, is from Scotland but does put sugar on his porridge. The first Scotsman rejoins, “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

 

What did he do? He essentially redefined the word Scotsman to insulate his argument against virtually any example that refutes it.

The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists—by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.

 

The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes. But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.

 

Nye was wrong to assume that no real scientist could ever hold the creation model, since scores of real scientists have and do. This is amply demonstrated in books like In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation and The Genesis Files, containing 22 interviews with Ph.D. scientists who ascribe to Ham’s creation model and tell their stories.2,3 And of course, early creation scientists forged the paths of each of today’s major scientific branches of inquiry, like Isaac Newton’s physics,4 Matthew Maury’s oceanography, Louis Pasteur’s immunology,5 Michael Faraday’s electromagnetism,6 and George Carver’s agriculture.7,8 Are we to believe that Newton and Pasteur were not real scientists?

 

Apparently, facts like these do not matter to someone who is so fully committed to the false idea that real scientists only believe in evolution that he is more than willing to adjust the very definition of scientist to preserve his argument.

 

The fictional Scotsman who actually does put sugar on his porridge was willing to present and perhaps even demonstrate his case. In the same way, a minority of true scientists are willing and prepared to make their cases for biblical and scientific creation. Why would anyone even feel the need to protect their anti-creation definition of scientist with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy unless the evidence for recent creation that believing scientists are prepared to present constitutes a real threat?

 

References

  1. Lisle, J. 2010. Discerning Truth. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 134.
  2. Ashton, J., ed. 2001. In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
  3. Wieland, C., ed. 2004. The Genesis Files. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
  4. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton. Acts & Facts. 37 (5): 8.
  5. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Louis Pasteur. Acts & Facts. 37 (11): 8.
  6. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Michael Faraday. Acts & Facts. 37 (8): 8.
  7. Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: George Washington Carver. Act & Facts. 37 (12): 8.
  8. Morris, H. 1982. Men of Science, Men of God. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

 

 

I Love where your Mind is at Sir!! :clap:

 

I was just reviewing this Fallacy the other day...and I didn't catch it. 

 

Very well done!!

 

 

My personal favorite is......If X did Y then claim Y as evidence of X  :huh:

 

Can you name it?



#3
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
It is the most common fallacy we see on this board. How many time have we seen comments like " a real Christian....". This forum is awash in this fallacy

#4
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,023 posts

It is the most common fallacy we see on this board. How many time have we seen comments like " a real Christian....". This forum is awash in this fallacy

 

:thumbsup:

 

And For That

 

How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. Jude 1:18-19

 

I Ask

 

But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

 

And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Jude 1:20-23

 

Forgiveness

 

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 1:24-25



#5
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,826 posts

It is the most common fallacy we see on this board. How many time have we seen comments like " a real Christian....". This forum is awash in this fallacy

That isn't the same because the Bible actually does give us the defintion of what real Christianity looks like.  The Bible does define what a real Christian is, so it is not a fallacy to make a biblical argument over what a real Christian is.  

 

An argument akin to the Scotsman fallacy would be in reference to something that doesn't actually define a real Christian. Something like,  "A real Christian always wears a suit and tie to church," would be an example of a Scotsman fallacy with relation to Christians.



#6
JustinM

JustinM

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,388 posts

You want to find a real Christian?  Look to YHVH and live your life as He did.  We can probably say that no one alive is a true Christian, since we all are so deeply flawed.  But, that's the great gift from our Savior, He forgives us for that.

 

People that live contrary to what He taught us, or instruct others to live contrary to His teachings are false witnesses and they must be identified and purged from the Church.  We have a responsibility to be good stewards within our Church.



#7
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

You want to find a real Christian?  Look to YHVH and live your life as He did.  We can probably say that no one alive is a true Christian, since we all are so deeply flawed.  But, that's the great gift from our Savior, He forgives us for that.

 

People that live contrary to what He taught us, or instruct others to live contrary to His teachings are false witnesses and they must be identified and purged from the Church.  We have a responsibility to be good stewards within our Church.

 

Not wanting to be too picky, but YHVH was the name for God the Father, not for Jesus.  So it would be a bit hard to see how YHVH lived. 



#8
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

It is the most common fallacy we see on this board. How many time have we seen comments like " a real Christian....". This forum is awash in this fallacy

That isn't the same because the Bible actually does give us the defintion of what real Christianity looks like.  The Bible does define what a real Christian is, so it is not a fallacy to make a biblical argument over what a real Christian is.  

 

An argument akin to the Scotsman fallacy would be in reference to something that doesn't actually define a real Christian. Something like,  "A real Christian always wears a suit and tie to church," would be an example of a Scotsman fallacy with relation to Christians.

 

 

Oh come now, you know it goes a bit deeper than that.  Go to some of the political threads and you find statements like "no true Christian would support that guy or this person".  I cannot count how many times you have implied that no true Christian would believe evolution or in an old earth or a great many other things.  Then there is the "no real Hebrew scholar" that you throw out all the time.  



#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,826 posts
Oh come now, you know it goes a bit deeper than that.  Go to some of the political threads and you find statements like "no true Christian would support that guy or this person". 

 

I don't think you will any of those.  I have never claimed that people who support Obama are not Christians.

 

 

I cannot count how many times you have implied that no true Christian would believe evolution or in an old earth or a great many other things.

 

 You can't count them becuase I have never implied any such thing even though you and others have sought desperately to assign that value to me.

 

Then there is the "no real Hebrew scholar" that you throw out all the time.  

 

That is baloney. What I have said is that there are no Hebrew scholars with advanced degrees in Hebrew that support the Gap Theory on grammatical grounds.   That is not a scotsman fallacy.  That is just the truth.   The fact that no one can yet provide ONE Hebrew scholar to refute my statements, prove it is not a fallacy.



#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,826 posts

 

You want to find a real Christian?  Look to YHVH and live your life as He did.  We can probably say that no one alive is a true Christian, since we all are so deeply flawed.  But, that's the great gift from our Savior, He forgives us for that.

 

People that live contrary to what He taught us, or instruct others to live contrary to His teachings are false witnesses and they must be identified and purged from the Church.  We have a responsibility to be good stewards within our Church.

 

Not wanting to be too picky, but YHVH was the name for God the Father, not for Jesus.  So it would be a bit hard to see how YHVH lived. 

 

No, YHVH is God's Name and Jesus is God.  God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 



#11
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

 

You want to find a real Christian?  Look to YHVH and live your life as He did.  We can probably say that no one alive is a true Christian, since we all are so deeply flawed.  But, that's the great gift from our Savior, He forgives us for that.

 

People that live contrary to what He taught us, or instruct others to live contrary to His teachings are false witnesses and they must be identified and purged from the Church.  We have a responsibility to be good stewards within our Church.

 

Not wanting to be too picky, but YHVH was the name for God the Father, not for Jesus.  So it would be a bit hard to see how YHVH lived. 

 

No, YHVH is God's Name and Jesus is God.  God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

 

 

Was YHVH ever assigned to Jesus in the Bible, or in other words is the name YHVH ever used in conjunction with Jesus. 



#12
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,826 posts

 

 

 

You want to find a real Christian?  Look to YHVH and live your life as He did.  We can probably say that no one alive is a true Christian, since we all are so deeply flawed.  But, that's the great gift from our Savior, He forgives us for that.

 

People that live contrary to what He taught us, or instruct others to live contrary to His teachings are false witnesses and they must be identified and purged from the Church.  We have a responsibility to be good stewards within our Church.

 

Not wanting to be too picky, but YHVH was the name for God the Father, not for Jesus.  So it would be a bit hard to see how YHVH lived. 

 

No, YHVH is God's Name and Jesus is God.  God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

 

 

Was YHVH ever assigned to Jesus in the Bible, or in other words is the name YHVH ever used in conjunction with Jesus. 

 

Not in terms of His humanty.   But in terms of His deity, Jesus is inseparable from the Father.  As God Jesus is YHVH.   YHVH is God's redemptive Name and Jesus is the revelation of,among other things, God's redemptive nature.   Every refrence in Scripture like, "YHVH Shalom, YHVH Tsidkeinu, YHVH kidshanu,  YHVH Rophe, YHVH Roi, YHVH Yeshua (salvation), etc. are references to Jesus.   Jesus, real Hebrew name is "Y'shua and Salvation encompasses all of those redemptive Names.  

 

Jesus in Revelation 1 refers to Himself as the first and the last the beginning and the end, meaning that Jesus is just as much God as the Father and YHVH is reference to both.



#13
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,538 posts

 

 

Not wanting to be too picky, but YHVH was the name for God the Father, not for Jesus.  So it would be a bit hard to see how YHVH lived. 

 

Actually that's not possible....

 

Ex 5:1
5:1 And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel ,
NASB
 

 

Ex 24:8-11
e LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel ; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank.
NASB
 

John 6:45-46
Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 "Not that any man has seen the Father , except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father .
NASB
 

 

No man has ever seen the Father, but 70+ people have seen YHVH           so either YHVH isn't the Father, or the Jesus is very mistaken....

 

Since the Bible tells us that Jesus was in the form of God before he set that aside and became flesh,

And since He told Moses that his name is (a word translated I AM)   and Jesus told the Jews that before Abraham was  (I AM)  I would think that there is a really good chance that Jesus truly was/is YHVH.

 

 

Something to ponder..



#14
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

 

 

Not wanting to be too picky, but YHVH was the name for God the Father, not for Jesus.  So it would be a bit hard to see how YHVH lived. 

 

Actually that's not possible....

 

Ex 5:1
5:1 And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel ,
NASB
 

 

Ex 24:8-11
e LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel ; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank.
NASB
 

John 6:45-46
Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 "Not that any man has seen the Father , except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father .
NASB
 

 

No man has ever seen the Father, but 70+ people have seen YHVH           so either YHVH isn't the Father, or the Jesus is very mistaken....

 

Since the Bible tells us that Jesus was in the form of God before he set that aside and became flesh,

And since He told Moses that his name is (a word translated I AM)   and Jesus told the Jews that before Abraham was  (I AM)  I would think that there is a really good chance that Jesus truly was/is YHVH.

 

 

Something to ponder..

 

 

I agree that Jesus is God, but there are names/titles given in the Bible for each of the 3 persons of the GodHead.  Names like Elohim and Adonai are, at least as far as I understand it, are speaking of God the Father and not the Son or Holy Spirit.   But perhaps I am mistaken, it has happened before.!



#15
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

Trying to nail down father vs Son vs Holy Spirit in the OT can sometimes be tricky.



#16
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,538 posts

Trying to nail down father vs Son vs Holy Spirit in the OT can sometimes be tricky.

 

I don't believe the Father is in the Old Testament specifically........      I think Jesus has always been the representing entity of the Godhead on planet earth.    The Spirit came to a few individual people for a specific reason but not to the entire people as after Jesus went to the Father.

 

but that's just my personal beliefs from a half century pondering.



#17
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts

Trying to nail down father vs Son vs Holy Spirit in the OT can sometimes be tricky.

I don't believe the Father is in the Old Testament specifically........      I think Jesus has always been the representing entity of the Godhead on planet earth.    The Spirit came to a few individual people for a specific reason but not to the entire people as after Jesus went to the Father.

 

but that's just my personal beliefs from a half century pondering.

 

Completely understood. I was simply noting that the issue isn't without its controversies. (I recall a least one thread with a bunch of us debating if The God of the OT was specifically Jesus or the Father.)



#18
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

 

 

It is the most common fallacy we see on this board. How many time have we seen comments like " a real Christian....". This forum is awash in this fallacy

That isn't the same because the Bible actually does give us the defintion of what real Christianity looks like.  The Bible does define what a real Christian is, so it is not a fallacy to make a biblical argument over what a real Christian is.  

 

An argument akin to the Scotsman fallacy would be in reference to something that doesn't actually define a real Christian. Something like,  "A real Christian always wears a suit and tie to church," would be an example of a Scotsman fallacy with relation to Christians.

 

 

Oh come now, you know it goes a bit deeper than that.  Go to some of the political threads and you find statements like "no true Christian would support that guy or this person".  I cannot count how many times you have implied that no true Christian would believe evolution or in an old earth or a great many other things.  Then there is the "no real Hebrew scholar" that you throw out all the time.  

 

I agree this one pops up frequently, often by implication as you said.  Other fallacies surface as well, but in general the discussions go pretty smoothly.



#19
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,826 posts

 

 

 

It is the most common fallacy we see on this board. How many time have we seen comments like " a real Christian....". This forum is awash in this fallacy

That isn't the same because the Bible actually does give us the defintion of what real Christianity looks like.  The Bible does define what a real Christian is, so it is not a fallacy to make a biblical argument over what a real Christian is.  

 

An argument akin to the Scotsman fallacy would be in reference to something that doesn't actually define a real Christian. Something like,  "A real Christian always wears a suit and tie to church," would be an example of a Scotsman fallacy with relation to Christians.

 

 

Oh come now, you know it goes a bit deeper than that.  Go to some of the political threads and you find statements like "no true Christian would support that guy or this person".  I cannot count how many times you have implied that no true Christian would believe evolution or in an old earth or a great many other things.  Then there is the "no real Hebrew scholar" that you throw out all the time.  

 

I agree this one pops up frequently, often by implication as you said.  Other fallacies surface as well, but in general the discussions go pretty smoothly.

 

"By Implication" means, "If I can twist Shiloh's words to make him appear to say or mean something he never said, I can deflect attention away from my inability to substantively address his comments."  It's nothing but an attempt to assign values to me in the absence of your ability to make substantive responses to the actual text of comments.  It is the last, desperate tactics employed by people who are losing the debate.



#20
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

"By Implication" means, "If I can twist Shiloh's words to make him appear to say or mean something he never said, I can deflect attention away from my inability to substantively address his comments."  It's nothing but an attempt to assign values to me in the absence of your ability to make substantive responses to the actual text of comments.  It is the last, desperate tactics employed by people who are losing the debate.

 

 

Have you ever considered that after large numbers of people have told you they view what you are saying in a certain way that the problem might lie with your words and not with everyone else? 






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network