How do you feel about intellectual fraud?

Question

I see this happen all the time with creationist arguments. The following question includes a supposed quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica which is absolutely false.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070824135357AAE1FhP&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMiTNcWOLU.GZdVjPvq3C4B9DabmPx8LCm3g--&paid=answered#AKIrCUDJUVezHTBXcuJP
Why is it necessary for creationists to resort to such fraudulent tactics? Will you really go to any length to convince people of your lies? Why can't you just honestly present REAL FACTUAL evidence and information regarding creation if it is so provable?

The EB article:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38367/turtle

Answer 1

Because the people who profit from the belief know the belief is a sham, but don't want to lose their holy cash cow. They know their adherents won't look it up themselves, so the only people that argue that they're wrong are the people that they tell their adherents not to believe.

Answer 2

Sound More Like the Encyclopedia Americana.
Did you know, that one time I was looking something up in one or the other of those encyclopedias, and the information in there was absolutely wrong?
I wish that I could remember what it was, but when I saw it, I seem to recall thinking that the reason was that sometimes in these reference works, the information is not always consistently updated. Basically, what can happen, is that a factoid (you know like a myth) works it's way in at some point in history, and then by staying there for years, people come to accept it as proven fact. This kind of thing happens in the Medical Community, Science, and Religion. It is shameful, but it is each of our responsibilities to cross reference to get to the truth.
Strange that we place such a high level of trust in these reference works.
On the other hand, maybe the person you are accusing of lying, actually is quoting innaccurately from somewhere else, you know, like some other web publication or page, where that person misrepresented the Encyclo. It should be said that, to cast aspersions on someone's reference, should take into account the fact that anyone can publish anything on the Internet.
As I always say, let the buyer beware.

You know? I thought just occurred to me. Many times, people challenge the Bible's authority by saying "why trust it? it was just written by men."
How is it then that we can discard the Bible as fact by reason that it was written by men, yet then turn right around and trust anything written by man?
Are not all science publications written by men?
Are not all Encyclopedias written by men?
SO, Why on earth do all the Bible scoffers trust any publications of men?

Is not this just 'picking and choosing' what you will believe?

Answer 3

At the very best it's naivety.
Believing creationists who do not check their sources, but swallow whatever their preferred books and websites serve up to them. Their crime is gullibility, and enthusiasm unbalanced by caution and intellectual rigor.

We had one here very recently who believed the "Drilling into Hell" urban legend.
Such are not perpetrating fraud deliberately, just re-cycling it.
And though that's hardly harmless, they too are being exploited.
But, somewhere in that chain, there must be people who know what they are doing, producing flawed arguments and distorted data to support what they see as a "good cause".
They are dishonest.
I almost would rather believe that, than believe there is an endless cycle of credibility, where no-one checks sources or considers real counter-arguments.

At least some creationist sources do try to stamp out the "Lady Hope: Darwin repented" legend.
Perhaps one should cheer for honesty where it is found.

Answer 4

It might not be true that that information is on the Encyclopedia Britannica, still the information in the question is accurate. I'm not a creationist and I'm amazed because it is the first time i've seen here on R&S a creationist question with accurate scientific information. (too bad she got her sources wrong)

It is true (or at least that was true until the begining of the year)that there are no transitional turtle fossils. It is also true that this does not disprove evolution.

Paz de Cristo

Answer 5

Ever see a creationist try to quote Einstein saying that he believed in intelligent design or a supreme being? Bull. Each time you can look up the quote and find words have been deleted or inserted. Someone on another forum posted a youtube video of Richard Dawkins. You couldn't see the questioner as he was off camera. He asked Dawkins something about evolution. It showed Dawkins sitting there saying nothing for about a minute. The point being, he didn't know the answer to a simple concept. The reality is, the tape was fraudulent. During that interview with Dawkins, some adjustments had to be made to the set. The camera stayed on Dawkins while he waited for the interview to resume. The question was later dubbed in days after the interview. It had never even been asked in the interview as it was well known that Dawkins, one of the top evolution scientists of all time, had answered that same question on numerous occasions.

I find it interesting that these faithful preach morals and ethics and even push to have them included in our schools. I refuse to have my tax dollars used to promote to our children these despicable and highly fraudulent concepts of "god's teachings."

Answer 6

You have to look at the quote-mining where they got it. Not long ago I saw on here a quote attributed to "Anthropological Journal of Canada." There is no such magazine, and as it turns out, it was written over 100 years ago in and published in "Creation Research Society Quarterly."

Answer 7

We must not assume it is fraud: the more likely scenario is that the Yahoo participant trusted a secondary source that claimed it was from Britannica, but was not. It's also possible that she made it up, or edited it to suit herself, but let's try to assume a degree of honesty where possible.

I really do believe there are creationists who are perfectly willing to lie to make their points, but I don't assume any given creationist is like that. "And they call me a ******** optimist, immature and incurably green."

Answer 8

Intellectual Fraud is the defining characteristic of YA R&S -- sad but true.

I see is from theists and atheists -- from creationists and evolutionists

Religion and Spirituality sadly does not usually corispond to Truth and Reallity -- although I belive it could if people chose to be honest.

D

Answer 9

Well, I do really dislike it.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

The only problem is, if the asker has an OLD paper based version, it could have quite easily been ammended. They might actually be sitting there with that book reading it. It gets ammended.

Answer 10

That old one?! Well as they lack any factual evidence that is the best they can do. They won't admit defeat!