Overcome Problems
I don't know if the author of this site genuinely believes that the contents are true, ( http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm) but he has at least had the courtesy to respond to my emails commenting on the contents. Our exchange is included at the bottom of this page.
Nevertheless, it is full of the usual distortions and falsehoods typical of creationist sites. Here is my analysis:
| Negative | 94.7% | argument from ignorance | 8 | 5.3% |
| bollocks | 9 | 5.9% | ||
| Utter Bollocks! | 5 | 3.3% | ||
| misrepresentation | 13 | 8.6% | ||
| Empty rhetoric | 2 | 1.3% | ||
| incredibly out-of-date | 1 | 0.7% | ||
| irrelevant | 35 | 23.0% | ||
| mind-blowingly irrelevant | 1 | 0.7% | ||
| misleading | 1 | 0.7% | ||
| out-of-date | 4 | 2.6% | ||
| Terminally stupid | 3 | 2.0% | ||
| unsupported assertion | 1 | 0.7% | ||
| weird | 1 | 0.7% | ||
| False | 60 | 39.5% | ||
| Neutral | 0.7% | don't know | 1 | 0.7% |
| Positive | 4.6% | True | 7 | 4.6% |
In this case nearly 95% of the statements made are listed as 'negative'. I have added a few categories here, some of them graded (e.g. 'bollocks' and 'Utter bollocks!). It's worth noting that nearly 40% are simply factually incorrect. If anyone thinks I am wrong in any of my judgements, please let me know. I'm quite happy to change anything if someone can provide the evidence that I am in errror.
Once again it is 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, and in this case relies heavily on using quotations to give authority to arguments. Many of these are simply misrepresenting the views of the originator - even when the author of the site claims that they are 'in context', - and some of them are very old indeed. Quite appart from the numerous Darwin quotes, we have Virchow (who died in 1902) quoted as an authority on Neanderthal Man, we have the infamous "Dr. Etheridge, World famous palaeontologist of the British Museum" (who worked in the BM between 1881 and 1891), and so on.
The reliance of creationists on quotations is telling in itself. Their views are informed by the blind acceptance of authority, and seem to think that science operates in the same way. Providing a quotation to support an assertion is not proof. Science requires evidence. It doesn't matter how prestigous a scientist may be, he or she still needs to support their theories by evidence.
Here are my comments on the site:
Page 1 Statements 1-16
Page 2 - Quotations 1-8
Page 3 - Statements 17-32
Page 4 - Quotations 9
Page 5 - Statements 33-44
Page 6 - Quotations 10-16
Page 7 - Statements 45-58
Page 8 - Quotations 17-24
Page 9 - Statements 59-66
Page 10 - Quotations 25-29
Page 11 - Statements 67-85
Page 12 - Quotations 30-35
Page 13 - Statements 86-97
Page 14 - Quotations 36-48
For the sake of the record, here is our email exchange:
Here are my comments on the site:
- Page 1 Statements 1-16
- Page 2 - Quotations 1-8
- Page 3 - Statements 17-32
- Page 4 - Quotations 9
- Page 5 - Statements 33-44
- Page 6 - Quotations 10-16
- Page 7 - Statements 45-58
- Page 8 - Quotations 17-24
- Page 9 - Statements 59-66
- Page 10 - Quotations 25-29
- Page 11 - Statements 67-85
- Page 12 - Quotations 30-35
- Page 13 - Statements 86-97
- Page 14 - Quotations 36-48
For the sake of the record, here is our email exchange:
- From RF: 16/03/04
- Reply 17/03/04
- RF 17/03/04
- Reply 01/04/04
- RF 01/04/04
- Reply: 09/04/04
- RF: 15/04/04