A Guide To Creationist Writing:
Dirty Tricks in the Name of God
"It is better to tell a lie for the TRUTH
than to tell the truth about a lie."
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
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.
it is important to understand exactly how the
Multiplication Trick works.
Remember your high school statistics class?
There you learned that "probabilities multiply".
an event A has probability
an event B has probability
if they are independent
the event that both happen
The trick is simple.
Multiply probabilities that are not independent.
(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:
So the small square PA PB
has lower probability than either alone.
How do we use this fact?
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
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.)
| PA(1- PB)
| (1-PA)(1- PB)
|| (1- PA) PB
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.
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
Here's how it works.
Set up three possibilities:
Knock down two of the arguments by
using other techniques described in this document.
This proves that the one you want is "right".
- information gain is caused by chance
- information gain is caused by smooth functions
- information gain is caused by an intelligent designer
- 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.
- 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:
The information is still there.
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.)
- information gain is caused by an intelligent designer.
If there are only two other possibilities, this one is left!
- 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!
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
This is a simple but effective tactic.
Simply do not address the issue at hand.
If this irritates the scientist,
you can then use
and then terminate the discussion.
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,
(3) terminate the discussion, leaving them
(hopefully) high and dry.
- Note 1:
This is a dangerous, although
potentially quite effective, tactic
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.
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.
This page is supported entirely with my personal resources
on my own time.
No governmental funds, equipment or electrons are being used.
Tom Schneider's Home Page
origin: 2002 March 13
updated: 2002 Nov 24