The Bourne CreationistAugust 26, 2010
I have spent some time this week amusing myself at the expense of this fellow, mostly on the Rational Skepticism forum. Since he goes by ‘stevebee’ most of the time, I’ll just call him steve.
The question of his identity and academic and private-sector achievements has already come up a couple times, as he attempted to use his education in arguments from (his) authority. That in itself was a source of much amusement as some squabbles arose over his claimed patents when the evidential support failed. He’s had to admit that his supposed name on the patents (when they couldn’t be found) was just a pseudonym, and so his attempt to be authoritative collapsed.
Lately he has obsessed over some creationist exercises in mathematics. The details are over on the RS forum, but put simply, it’s an attempt to generate some impressive-looking math about human population growth that seems to back up the timeline of Young Earth Creationism until the underlying assumptions are examined. Ah, yes, assumptions. Tends to be their downfall. steve has since decided that there is some paradox in the math, though he’s had trouble convincing anyone else.
Looking at his own wordpress blog — though I link to it with some reservation, it’s only fair to cite the source — he portrays himself as a ‘philosophical’ ID proponent. But it is interesting how his xian past seems to bubble to the surface over and over with these bible-based arguments.
First of all, to repeat, I am not attached to any organizations. I am not a Biblical Creationist, I am a philosophical ID’er. It is completely obvious, that there is an immense amount of intelligence in nature. I know evolutionauts like to cover their eyes and pretend that there isn’t.
Of course, it’s not that obvious, and his cheap insults don’t bolster his case, but undermine it. At the same time, it is interesting to consider that the elephant in the room, or his blog — the ‘intelligent designer’ — is never explained. This, along with the consistent references to bible-based arguments, might make one question this claim of his that I’ve quoted. As some of the RS posters mention, ‘if it quacks like a duck’ etc.
It’s a shame that steve doesn’t seem to recognize this — or take any steps to resolve it. It allows his sincerity to continue to be questioned. For my part, it seems intentional, as ID itself was after all demonstrated in court to be just creationism in science-y clothing. Why would a bible-disbeliever take up the banner of disguised creationism? And why not go ahead and explain what’s claimed to be so bleeding obvious? Perhaps because it’s not.
There’s also some irony in this, as he is hoist with his own petard:
The worst kind of debate is when the parties call their “opponents” names or use statements like“You are nothing but a creationist shill” as one evolutionist called me. There is no way to combat that kind of communication. These “arguments” kill good discussion and good science.
This, from the fellow that can’t help but open up with ‘evolutionauts’ and how skeptics are in denial. Does that make his arguments dead on arrival? Perhaps. Even ‘evolutionist’ bothers some people; it’s not as if people go around calling themselves ‘gravitists’. One might work as a ‘chemist’ or a ‘geologist’ but it’s not a statement of belief or a philosophical position to hold.
Evolution alone seems to hold this fascination, even if geology takes young earth creationism out back to be shot. Creationists know how to pick their battles, and if they want to rant about the speed of light they can get laughed out of the room. At its base, ‘evolutionist’ is an attempt to label the skeptic as holding some faith/belief position, same as a ‘creationist,’ and this is why some find the insult bothersome.
Ah well. I suppose this is the best we can expect of a blogger who claims to take ‘an objective look’ when the URL is ‘evillusion’. It is enough of a mock to point out the hypocrisy oozing from the pages, and thenceforth to laugh.