50 reasons to leave your faith (evolution)
I came across a web site called '50 reasons to leave
your faith (evolution)' (http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/)
which made me especially angry. It is a string of falsehoods and distortions.
So I've analysed the site as a series of statements. My analysis of their
truthfulness is given in the table below.
(29th Jan 2005) It has been pointed out to me that this site has been taken down. However, most of the content is repeated verbatim at http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/. I'll cross-check the text and find any changes which may have been made.
| Negative | 89.8% | ad hominem attack | 1 | 0.4% |
| false inference | 1 | 0.4% | ||
| Fatuous | 1 | 0.4% | ||
| Dubious | 2 | 0.8% | ||
| False logic | 2 | 0.8% | ||
| inverted logic | 2 | 0.8% | ||
| incomprehensible | 4 | 1.6% | ||
| Irrelevant | 75 | 30.6% | ||
| Misleading | 15 | 6.1% | ||
| Out of date information | 1 | 0.4% | ||
| unsupported assertion | 10 | 4.1% | ||
| False | 106 | 43.3% | ||
| Neutral | 3.7% | I don't know | 1 | 0.4% |
| no comment | 7 | 2.9% | ||
| uncertain | 1 | 0.4% | ||
| Positive | 6.5% | True | 16 | 6.5% |
I list about 90% of the statements made on the site as 'negative', and include statements which are irrelevant (30%), dubious, fatuous, incomprehensible and so on as well as those which are simply false (43%). About 4% of the statements I list as 'neutral'. This is mainly where I don't know the answer, and am thus unable to make an honest comment. This leaves 6.5% which I consider to be true. You can find my analysis on the following pages. I invite anyone who has in interest to comment on my judgements and conclusions, and would be grateful for references (either on-line or in print) to support or disprove any of my assertions. I believe that they demonstrate comprehensively either utter ignorance, or a complete lack of integrity on the part of the author (or authors). It's worth pointing out that in promoting their views as the truth, and using reference to religious doctrine to support their position they are elevating themselves to the moral high ground. This requires a higher level of integrity than science. As a scientist I readily admit to being wrong at times - an admission I have yet to hear from any creationist.
It is also clear that little, if any research has been done to validate any of the claims on the site. Most of the text on the site simply repeats claims and assertions made on other creationist sites - sometimes copied verbatim. In most cases a simple google search will find web sites that invalidate the claim. Others may need rather more research, such as reading books on the subjects (You know, books. Those bundles of paper with ink marks on the pages we used to use all the time. You can find collections of books in special buildings called libraries. Most libaries (at least, those in the UK) will obtain almost any book for you for a small fee.)
Page 1
- Statements 1-14
Page 2 - Statements
15-30
Page 3 - Statements
32-55
Page 4 - Statements
56-84
Page 5 - Statements
85-110
Page 6 - Statements
111-144
Page 7 - Statements
145-159
Page 8 - Statements
160-173
Page 9 - Statements
174-191
Page 10 - Statements
192-210
Page 11 - Statements
211-228
Page 12 - Statements
229-237
Page 13 - Statements
238-246