The “Authorists” have Chimed In!

A few weeks ago I posted an innocuous little satirical article for my blog, which made the modest proposal that articles have no authors.  The article committed just about every logical fallacy that evolutionists use in defending their beliefs.  It was a fun little article, and many of you posted comments that you enjoyed reading it.  Thanks!

What I was not expecting is the number of people who wanted to argue against the article!  We got a lot of comments from “authorists” – those people who believe that articles are written by authors.  I got the impression that many of these authorists are also evolutionists.  So while they believe that an article could not come about by chance processes of nature, they are willing to believe that organisms, which are far more intricate and complex, could come about by chance processes of nature.  A number of them chimed in to defend the authorship of articles, apparently oblivious to the inconsistency of believing in biological evolution while taking a creationist position on article origins.

Well, I couldn’t resist the chance to jump in and defend the evolutionary/chance origin of articles.  It is not often that I have an opportunity to defend the evolution side (for argument’s sake).  So I responded to the authorists’ claims.  I made every effort to argue like an evolutionist – committing the same logical fallacies and making the same false assumptions that so often appear in evolutionary literature.  I was very curious to see if evolutionists would spot these blunders in logic when they occur in arguments that are not arguments for molecules-to-man evolution.  Did they?

For the most part, they did not.  A number of them conceded points that (from a rational perspective) they should not have.  Some of them began to think and argue in the right direction, only to veer off course when it started to become clear that such reasoning would also disprove biological evolution.  By the way, I believe in all sincerity that it is very easy to prove that articles have authors – but not without simultaneously disproving particles-to-people evolution!  Go ahead and take a look at the comments that were posted.  (Make sure you have some free time – there are a lot!)  And please feel free to join the conversation and post your own comments.

21 Responses to The “Authorists” have Chimed In!

  1. Josh Davis says:

    Dr. Lisle,
    That is interesting that you wrote to explain about the previous article. I didn’t even notice the fallacies that you wrote. I just started reading “Discerning Truth” a couple days ago. I hope things are going well for you at ICR.

  2. bob apjok says:

    Great blog, but is there any way to check on the formatting of these pages. Every article I read has words beginning on one line and then falling over to the next. It is hard to read. Anyone else noticed this?

  3. Randy Speir says:

    Sorry Dr. Lisle that this is off topic but I am trying to send you something you may find interesting. Since you moved I do not have a good address. Is there a general way we can get in touch with you besides the blog? Thanks.

  4. bob apjok says:

    Looks good now Dr. Lisle. Thank you.

  5. Ray says:

    Dr. Lisle,
    I sent a letter to AiG and they told me you left. Wow! Anyway, I just want to thank you somehow for responding to the reviews of “The Ultimate Proof” on Amazon. I had read one long one which got me a little concerned until I read your comments. Thank you for that and for your book and for all your doing.

    • Nick L. says:

      Ray, I wasn’t aware that Dr. Lisle had responded to Amazon reviews. Thanks for the heads-up! I’ll have to check that out. 🙂

      Nick L.

  6. Jacob Howard says:

    Hi Dr. Lisle,

    I have but one question. How many years did it take for these comments to evolve and fit the article? Surely it must not have taken as long as the article because the article is longer. Therefore, what would be your guess of mistakes adding up to make this comment? But then, you have to take into account that the comment is related to the evolved article so maybe the comment took longer.

    What would you think? I would also like to know how long it would take for the article to get onto the web. Obviously this article started out a long time ago. It is quite amazing (hey, the evolution of words is congratulating itself)!

    Now, I must say that the Bible would have had to start many millions of years ago to get to the amazing truth it carries today. People have a hard time believing those prophecies were from God, imagine what the problem would be like if we all believed that those prophecies came about by errors in copying. And all those errors combined from the beginning of one letter formed the Bible. Now that would be something (now the evolution of words is degrading itself)!

    I could go on all day and I believe that horridly error-ed article that arose by chance and mistakes has given my chance-made brain and idea for my own website (that has completely arose by chance).


    In Christ Jesus (I wonder how many years it takes to “error” the Creator of the Universe into writing) alone,

    Jacob Howard

  7. Cheri says:

    I think you hit the nail on the head with your article. I’d like to post it as a page on my blog for parents and young people to use as an “inoculation” against Evolutionary thinking. Once you are familiar with such illogical arguments, you aren’t nearly as likely to fall for them.
    I would post a link to whatever page you would like including your books.
    At this time I haven’t earned a penny from my writing, so I couldn’t pay any royalties. 🙁
    Thanks for taking the time to study, speak, and write so clearly for God’s Kingdom!
    In Christ’s Service,

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Cheri – you may re-post on your blog if you like. Just link back to here as the source please. Thanks! No royalties required. I wouldn’t feel right taking money for an article that wrote itself. 🙂

  8. […] articles (i.e. the one you are about to read) have also evolved. Lisle calls his article a “innocuous little satirical article” but I believe it to be a well-deserved broadside against evolution (and evolution based race […]

  9. Joseph Tertius says:

    >…..only to veer off course when it started to become clear that such reasoning would also disprove biological evolution.

    The argument would only disprove evolution if the analogy is a valid one.

    To say that “articles are also reproduced” does NOT establish that the reproductive processes are analogous. After all, surely everyone would agree that simple DUPLICATION is not the same thing as genetic recombination during sexual reproduction (even if other processes described in The Theory of Evolution are left aside for the moment.)

    So I’m not so sure that vilification of those who doubt the validity of the analogy makes for a strong argument.

    • Brad says:

      He’s a Christian. He doesn’t care about strong arguments. He’s a liar.

      [Dr. Lisle: This is a question-begging epithet fallacy.]

  10. Brad says:

    Articles don’t reproduce.

    [Dr. Lisle: Articles are copied – much like DNA.]

    Deceitful analogy.

    [Dr. Lisle: Why?]

    The dishonesty of Christians, who supposedly believe lying is a sin according to their objective morality never ceases to astound me.

    [Dr. Lisle: Example? In an evolutionary worldview, why would lying be “wrong” if it benefits my survival? It is intriguing to me that evolutionists will argue that Christianity isn’t true, and then complain when someone (allegedly) violates Christian principles.]

  11. ben duarte says:

    Dr. Lisle-I am a Christian and a scientist. Are you not aware that there are no true scientific discoveries that refute creation?

    [Dr. Lisle: Yes, I am aware of that.]

    All science and all math that defines the universe was created in the beginning. Scientists discover.

    [Dr. Lisle: Science is a set of procedures by which we test certain types of truth claims. Math is the study of the relationships between numbers. These are both possible because God upholds the universe in a consistent way and has designed our minds with the ability to be rational.]

    I’m reading your book, Ultimate Proof, and am surprised that you have a phd in astrophysics and are unaware that the big bang is the beginning when God created the universe.

    [Dr. Lisle: Your statement is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. I could equally well say, “You appear to be unaware that the big bang has been refuted.” Actually, the big bang is a secular alternative to creation. Namely, most big bang supporters attempt to explain the origin of the universe by natural law – without appealing to any supernatural being (God). The big bang is very different from God’s description of how He created the universe as recorded in Genesis.]

    You don’t appear to have knowledge of the theory of relativity…

    [Dr. Lisle: It seems that you are unaware that I have published original research in the field of relativity. ]

    and its undisputed explanations of time rates and how those rates clearly support the formation of the universe.

    [Dr. Lisle: I’m certainly aware of how velocity, acceleration, and mass affect the flow of time. But why do you think these are pertinent to the formation of the universe?]

    The earth was created in six days according to the time rate we live in now. In the beginning the time rate was millions of times faster than it is now and clearly defines how the universe and earth developed according to Gods plan and also accounts for starlight time.

    [Dr. Lisle: “The time rate was millions of times faster than it is now” relative to what? One of the most important principles to learn about the physics of relativity is that the measurement of time or space is only meaningful when the reference frame is specified. You didn’t specify one. But God does. In Genesis 1 God defines the day as being comprised of one evening and one morning on Earth (Genesis 1:1-5). Thus, creation took six days (six earth rotations) as measured by clocks on Earth – the same as today. Adam was made on the sixth day, and the Bible lists the number of generations between Adam and Christ – limiting the age of the universe to about 6000 years from the Earth’s reference frame. There is abundant scientific evidence that also confirms this age of the Earth and of the universe as we’ve shown at, for example,]

    No science refutes anything in Genesis but rather, supports it.

    [Dr. Lisle: Your statement is true. But be careful not to confuse scientific-sounding claims with actual science. The big bang, deep time, and particles-to-people evolution are not scientific at all; they are not testable or repeatable in the present, nor observable by scientific procedures. They are claims, contrary to Scripture. Moreover, these claims are not supportable by scientific evidence.]

    The Bible is based on a time rate that we understand and that’s how God chose to do it. You need to do some reading!

    [Dr. Lisle: The Bible teaches that God created in six (Earth-rotation) days and rested one day as a pattern for us to follow. That’s why we have a seven-day week. See Exodus 20:8-11. God had the power to make the universe in an instant, but He chose to space out His acts of creation into six days for our benefit. He certainly did not create over billions of years, and then lie about it.]

    It would be embarrassing to me to pass the book on to an evolutionist.

    [Dr. Lisle: The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted. (Proverbs 29:25).]

    While some of your hypotheses have merit, that I’ve heard before, others, such as knowledge and logic don’t hold water. Some of the negative reviews I can’t help but agree with.

    [Dr. Lisle: Presumably, you refer to my argument that knowledge and logic would not be justified apart from the Christian worldview. This is actually God’s claim, by the way (e.g. Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3,8, Romans 1:21-22.) If you don’t think that “holds water,” then can you provide me with a counter-example? In other words, can you provide a worldview – aside from Christianity – that can justify the existence and properties of laws of logic, and make knowledge possible? So far, I haven’t met anyone who is able to do so.]

    If one wants ultimate proof bring science and the Bible together as they are entirely compatible.

    [Dr. Lisle: The Bible is the necessary foundation for science. Namely, if the Bible were not true, then science would be rationally unjustified (there would be no reason to trust it).]

    The theory of relativity is science, a good read.

    [Dr. Lisle: Yes, it is.]

    There is a lot of unsupported science and one must know the difference.

    [Dr. Lisle: It is certainly true that much of what is touted to be “science” is really unsupported – particles-to-people evolution, deep time, big bang, etc. A great book you might want to consult on this issue is “Creation Basics and Beyond” available here: There is a chapter on the big bang.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *