A Guide To Creationist Writing:

This page is devoted to distributing "debate" techniques that you can use to fool, annoy and demolish your unworthy scientific opponents, while impressing gullible school boards. Be sure not to reveal this page to anyone except other creationists.

There are a variety of "tried and true" methods to accomplish our important work. These are described below. You can use them separately or in a wonderfully bewildering array of combinations.

• The Multiplication Trick. This is one of the most effective tactics, as it will even fool most of the scientists! You are encouraged to use it repeatedly.

  First, it is important to understand exactly how the Multiplication Trick works. Remember your high school statistics class? There you learned that "probabilities multiply". So if an event A has probability P_A and an event B has probability P_B then if they are independent the event that both happen will be P_A times P_B. The trick is simple. Multiply probabilities that are not independent. Most people (yes even scientists) will be fooled if you "show" that the probability of forming some protein is 20^-300.

  So what's this about the events being independent? In geometry independence of two variables is shown by them being at right angles:

  PA	PA(1- PB) PA PB (1-PA)(1- PB) (1- PA) PB
  1-PA
  	1-PB	PB

  So the small square P_A P_B has lower probability than either alone. How do we use this fact? It's simple. When two events are not independent, just pretend that they are! That is, don't mention your underlying assumptions. Even some (bad) scientists will be fooled, I promise you. So suppose event A occurs (generation of a new mutation). Having occurred, there are no other possibilities (selection eliminates the opposition and the mutant takes over the population). Now event B occurs given that event A occurred. (a second mutation occurs that builds on the first one.) The mathematical symbol for this is the conditional probability P(B|A), but I only mention this to warn you to NEVER mention this during a debate or your "magic trick" will be ruined! So how does this work? Well, B is not independent of A. Once we are in the position to consider B, A has already become everything, it has "taken over the world"! So the event where A is followed by B can be much more probable than P_A P_B. That is, once one step has occurred the next is not so hard. The rare event is magnified by natural selection. That is, alternating replication with variation (which expands the various probabilities) is followed by selection ( which winnows the possibilities by expanding the functional variants). It's sort of like an inch worm climbing a great oak. During evolution there is replication that expands the probabilities over again. Now that you know how the trick works, you can apply it. If a protein is 300 amino acids long, and there are 20 amino acids, then the probability of generating a specific protein from random combinations is 20^-300. Just be sure not to mention the fatal flaw in this argument that multiplying is not legal in this situation. As a creationist you must avoid mentioning the conditional, replication or selection, and you will do fine. (Sorry, I cannot do anything for your guilt complex except to suggest confession or admitting that this is a stupid trick and becoming an advocate of the theory of evolution.)

• Obscurity. By making a topic unnecessarily complicated, a reader will be unable to penetrate your logic. They will conclude that you are smart. In the book "No Free Lunch" Dembski does this with his mathematics. Warning: make sure that real mathematicians do not get involved or you will be in hot water! Poor Dembski got scalded pretty badly.

• The Choices Shell Game. Dembski used this technique masterfully in the book "No Free Lunch". Indeed the entire book is built around the argument. Here's how it works. Set up three possibilities:

  1. information gain is caused by chance
  2. information gain is caused by smooth functions
  3. information gain is caused by an intelligent designer
  Knock down two of the arguments by using other techniques described in this document. This proves that the one you want is "right".
  1. information gain is caused by chance: use the Multiplication Trick repeatedly until your opponent turns red from anger and then blue in the face and falls over.
  2. information gain is caused by smooth functions: Imagine placing a book in an X, Y, Z coordinate system. Then warp the space with this smooth transformation: y->y². The information is still there. Now try y->sine(y). The information in the book would be scrambled. So information is either kept or lost, not gained by a smooth function. (Note: Be sure not to mention the word 'smooth' or this trick may not work. Use obscurity to avoid saying that.)
  3. information gain is caused by an intelligent designer. If there are only two other possibilities, this one is left!
  4. information gain is caused by evolution (reproduction, mutation, selection). DO NOT SAY THIS. THIS IS ONLY TO EXPLAIN THE TRICK!! You can MENTION this case as much as you want, but NOT exactly at the place that you do the Shell game! Be sure not to explain that this process causes multiple branching in the function (reproduction), with termination of some branches (death). Clearly this goes beyond the smooth functions allowed by Case 2. Just don't mention it and the reader won't notice!

• Verbosity. A barrage of words makes a reply or response difficult. Where one word will do, use five. Repeat almost identical sentences in each chapter. (Note: modern computer food processors like Foody or FoodIMperfekt make this an easy preparation.) Use the same argment over and over, even if you know it is wrong. It will wear down your opponent scientist.

• Overwhelming the Opposition. Spew out 12 errors in 3 sentences. This will flabbergast a scientist - who will conclude that you are an IDiot - and they will go back to their test tubes. School boards, on the other hand are easy prey and will be impressed by your erudition.

• Evasion. This is a simple but effective tactic. Simply do not address the issue at hand. If this irritates the scientist, you can then use Righteous Wrath (see below) and then terminate the discussion.

• Righteous Wrath. When in doubt about your ability to hold to your faith, you must attack the scientists directly. They will be shocked by your nastiness and will feel obliged to respond to "keep up their good name". This will side track them. Then you can trip them by (1) pointing out that they are off topic [nifty, enh?], (2) objecting vehemently if they personally attack you, and finally (3) terminate the discussion, leaving them (hopefully) high and dry.

  • Note 1: This is a dangerous, although potentially quite effective, tactic since unlike creationists, scientist are highly respected in our society. You can easily demonstrate this by starting up a conversation with someone on the street and casually mentioning to them that you are a molecular biologist. Their eyes will go wide and light up. Be careful though, since you don't know DNA from DDT, you had better then quickly make an excuse and get out of there!
  • Note 2: this tactic must be used only as a last defense since if it backfires, it can completely destroy your credibility forever.
  • Note 3: An example is the failed email attacks by Wallace.

• The Down-Righteous Lie. Remember: to tell a lie in the name of Truth is the highest virtue. For example, it's ok to tell someone that they will go to heaven - even if you don't know that is true - if it induces them to, say, fly an airplane into a building containing your enemy.

Tom Schneider's Home Page