Posted: Oct 16, 2010 8:29 pm
One of the problems with SteveBee is that he never asks a flat, honest question like "How did X evolve and what is the evidence for it?"
He almost always presents a false dilemma or poisons the well, before asking his question. Like "Evolution can only happen if X makes Y function together with Z, and this is impossible. So how did it evolve?". And when you demonstrate to him that he asked the question in the wrong way, he will simply pick a standard answer from his list, usually "you are indoctrinated".
You see, the problem with SteveBee is that he has no interest in the actual theory of evolution, or the evidence for it, he only desires to get rid of it. To do that, he must make it seem unreasonable or impossible in some way, that is why he so consistently misrepresents it. Steve actually knows how evolution works and what it's postulates are, so he uses this knowledge to ask questions with ludicrous demands and misrepresentations that evolutionary theory would never actually posit happened in the past. This way, when someone might try and actually answer his demands, we must first deconstruct his incorrect postulate, and re-educate the reader with how evolution actually works, before answering what would have been a valid question.
It's a lot of work to do, and this is by his intention.
He almost always presents a false dilemma or poisons the well, before asking his question. Like "Evolution can only happen if X makes Y function together with Z, and this is impossible. So how did it evolve?". And when you demonstrate to him that he asked the question in the wrong way, he will simply pick a standard answer from his list, usually "you are indoctrinated".
You see, the problem with SteveBee is that he has no interest in the actual theory of evolution, or the evidence for it, he only desires to get rid of it. To do that, he must make it seem unreasonable or impossible in some way, that is why he so consistently misrepresents it. Steve actually knows how evolution works and what it's postulates are, so he uses this knowledge to ask questions with ludicrous demands and misrepresentations that evolutionary theory would never actually posit happened in the past. This way, when someone might try and actually answer his demands, we must first deconstruct his incorrect postulate, and re-educate the reader with how evolution actually works, before answering what would have been a valid question.
It's a lot of work to do, and this is by his intention.