Actually Stouthorn, I think I will reply to YOUR post.
;D
I'll get this started.
While not nice to say, it's not "Poisoning the Wells" because we must assume a biology teacher has come across creationism in the past.
Well, that depends. If the teacher goes on to explain WHY creationism is stupid through the class, then it's not quite the fallacy he makes it out to be. The trouble is, he doesn't say anything further about the incident. We can only judge from what he tells us.
Interestingly, one could say that allegedly pointing out an example of "Poisoning the Well" from a scientist to start off your argument against science could itself be considered an example of "Poisoning the Well."
Essentially, he's claiming to be a better scientist than any serious biologist of the past century. Well done.
Yeah. It's funny too. When he goes off on those strange metaphysical detours about God and such, it doesn't occur to him that true science doesn't deal with those things in the first place. So for him to bring it up as part of his assertion makes it scientifically unsound by default. It's either through sheer ignorance or arrogance or both that he's trying to make the claim that he's helping science by trying to bring up creationism.
The thing about science is nothing is ever a closed question. Nothing is taken for granted. A teaching is accepted as a truism insofar as it holds up to the facts, but all scientists are aware of the possibility that new discoveries will radically change the way they once understood things. It happens all the time, especially in the field of physics. So while the question of origins is not closed, it is closed to creationism until there is some scientific evidence in its favor. So far, evolution is the theory.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And very little of that has anything to do with science.
I think this is Guilt by Association. Point to all the bad things done by people who turned science into a virtual religion then make it look as if this reflected science itself.
No. I don't know what else to say to this besides...no. This is the sort of demonization of science and scientists that I hate reading from creationists. A scientist can't appreciate and recognize the beauty in, say, the deep red of a rose petal because he knows it's a product of light of high wavelengths reflecting from a surface and entering his retina, where it is interpreted by his brain? Science may alter the way we look at things, but it does not remove appreciation for the abstract.
Yah. Apparently, minimizing the subjective isn't part of his methodology. He is, once again confusing, or deliberately associating, scientism with science. In this case, he's turning the Philosophy of Science into this scientism thing, which is really not science but a form of Hegelian philosophy.
This is technically a Strawman Fallacy. He's misconstruing science and attacking that false image in order to look like he's discrediting real science.
So you're saying we shouldn't base science on data that is "merely factual"? He's discussing philosophy.
Yeah. He's appealing to the irrational sides of people. "ZOMG! Look how cold and heartless science is!!!"
Because happiness and anger have nothing to do with the path of an electron, because a "culture of life" does not have a bearing on the splitting of an atom, because gravitation happens whether you believe in it or not. What a stupid question. But he goes on to answer it in his own way:
LOL! This is the clincher. This guy has no idea how science actually works. By its very nature, science must limit itself to what it can see/measure/etc. Anything else is beyond its purvue. Theories have to be corroborated by people other than yourself with the world they see around them. If it can't be empirically observed by people other than you, then there's no way to confirm if it's true or not. Sure, it's easy to say "God did it" when other people ALREADY SHARE THAT BELIEF! It's another to be able to present evidence to prove this happened regardless of whether people share that preconception or not.
Because that's what science is, you dolt!
Heh. Without any sort of objective third party corroboration with observed reality, there is no way to tell if you're making it up or not.
Captain Kirk seems like a real person to many Trekkies. Characters can seem so real that people can directly empathize with them. However, those characters are NOT real. They're fiction. This idiot seems to think that what people "feel" are automatic justifications for what is real or not. That's borderline insanity. A true case of egoism run amok.
Okay. The first example has to do with emotion and spirituality, the second is philosophical, the third is artistic, and the last is true -- except those mathematics govern the motion of the universe. While it's true that love may be more complicated and music is more than sound, science is not in the business of studying art and spirituality. A scientific definition of music would be "an arrangement of sounds."
See what he's doing? He's trying to connect a pattern. Of course, as you pointed out, it totally fallacious.
Odd, for someone wishing to point out the fallacies of science, he's committing so many of his own...
Anyway, he's implying that because people "know" that there's more to love and whatnot than what science "says" about them, then there must be more to it than what science says about evolution as well!
Ahahaha see what he did there? He used semantics. Isn't he clever?
Even if they aren't in biology, they should still hold up to the basics of the Philosophy of Science. Even if they don't know exactly how evolution works, they'd still be obligated to turn away creationism as a theory.
Evolution is the accepted scientific theory on which a lot of biology rests. As a "theory," it is accepted as fact, or at least a truism, by the scientific community. An equivelant statement would be to say, "Most scientists believe in electrons," because the two ideas or on the same scientific standing.
In addition to what Stouthorn said, I should point out that he's using a fallacy here: the False Dichotomy Fallacy. He's saying that even if MOST scientists believe in evolution, there are still "many" (anywhere from 1% to 49% by his reasoning) who believe in creationism. Since his imaginary polls allegedly show anywhere from a 51% to 99% rate of belief in evolution among scientists, then the rest are automatically creationists by default. He's assuming there are only two sides in this debate.
Also, that fake poll is bogus. He's just pulling it out of thin air. I know he's trying to make a point using an analogy or example, but he could have at least given us a REAL poll that shows how many scientists believe in a literal Biblical Creation.
This was back when science was still called "natural philosophy" and wasn't really science at all, and people believed in creationism because there was no alternative, and science and religion had not had a reason to split. The discovery of extinct animal remains fossilized in stone for millions of years disproved the idea that the world was only a few thousand years old, causing a rift.
IIRC, there were other forms of evolution floating around at the time. I think scientists were already moving away from Creation theory for quite a while. Darwin simply clinched it.
The author then goes on to list a bunch of questions demonstrating subjectivism in the definition of a "fact," such as questions of race under the Third Reich and the medical utility of ether in Victorian England. Like I said, scientists realize that theories can be altered, but for now evolution has all the facts behind it and, when applied and studied, holds up like any other scientific theory. Should new information come along, science will adjust, will rethink, will flex, will incorporate, will change. That's the beauty of the scientific study of the world, as opposed to Creationism, which flies in the face of evidence, unyielding.
Interesting to note: This guy probably started out with the idea that God had something to do with making the universe and is hammering all the evidence to fit with his preconcieved structure.
The beauty of science is its ability to make a theoretical structure that conforms to the evidence. THAT'S why it's such a powerful tool. It's doesn't reinforce given knowledge; it creates new knowledge.
So...we can't trust anyone at all, then, can we? To say you can't quote scientist because he's only human is bullshit, and would then have to go across the board. You can't quote a historian as support for an argument because he's only human. You can't quote a politician because he's only human. You can't quote a philosopher because he's only human. You can't quote the Bible because it was written by humans? It's ludicrous to say you can't use an expert as support.
More evidence that the guy doesn't understand science. True, ONE human can make mistakes. But a bunch of them coming together to share facts and ideas are going to be able to spot each others' mistakes. Especially if they have a methodology that minimizes subjectivity by looking outside individual human minds and looking for the widest margin of corroboration and agreement with the facts.
The man? No. Many, many, many men for over a century? Yes.
Yeah, same as above. No one guy comes up with the truth. Truth is confirmed by consensus.
The last part is true: it can, theoretically, hypothetically happen. But it doesn't happen often. Scientists are not elevated to the level of clergy. They are elevated to the level of "people who know what the hell they're talking about and do this for a living and so know more about it than me, thus they're opinions/ideas/writings are better informed than mine ever will unless I follow their career path."
And the idea of peer review fits in nicely here as well. Once again, to minimize mistakes made by members of the scientific community.
Once again: Darwin lived over a century ago, and since his death many scientists have come after him and studied his theories and expanded upon them. The scientific community did not randomly select natural selection and evolution as the theory-of-the-week and forget to change it. It's undergone decades upon decades of study. It's not pontificating.
I'm guessing the author thinks that the two "sides" should be evolutionists versus creationists in the class room or something like that. Remember, this guy has an admitted agenda. There's no harm in reading this into his works, especially since he's trying to convert people to his point of view.
And the answer would be given in reams.
Actually, the idea that people who have no intimate understanding about the scientific method can actually make sound opinions on conclusions reached through that method is patently absurd. Take the author as a case in point. A general education isn't enough, especialy if we're talking about science education in this country.
EXACTLY, and I'd hope that if you're a historian worth your salt you would utterly own those scientists because YOU'RE THE EXPERT. You know the evidence better than they do, you're more familiar with the material and the facts surrounding the issue, and so you will most likely provide a better answer to "Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo?" than a physicist.
YOU FILTHY ELITIST! HOW DARE YOU EXCUDE OTHERS!!!!
You know that's what they're going to say... It's not as if the actual reality of superior knowledge and understanding is going to convince people who think that they have God on their side they might actually be wrong.
ARGH!
He goes on to discuss the fallacy that popular opinion makes something true. He's right. This is a fallacy. Popular opinion does not make something true. Study and research do.
He then talks about Chronological Snobbery, which is also another valid fallacy. However, it's not the fact that it's new that makes something true, here, but the fact that it's supported by facts.
I understand your frustration. He's spewing so many fallacies in that tripe of his that it's quite hard to digest.
In any case, this is another Black/White or False Dichotomy Fallacy. He's saying that if things don't go HIS way, then it's going to be some sort of calcified hierarchy that preserved knowledge and hands them down to people.
Of course, we know this isn't true. He's obviously misrepresenting science. Of course, the scary thing is that not everybody out there realizes that. Even people who aren't rabid creationists are going to look at that and think "Gee, why
can't both sides be taught?" It's a virtue of fairness on the part of many Americans that I would normally commend, but in this case, it's overshadowed by frightening ignorance...
When it is said that evolution is the "only plausible view of origins," it means that it's the only scientifically verifiable one.
Some people don't seem to make the distinction. Apparently, they have to incorporate every mystical non-factual element into the scientific process because their beliefs compel them to...
On Comparitive Anatomy: Yes, it is possible that a creator could design things similarly, but it necessitates the existence of an unverifiable creator, and the exclusion of a lot of evidence.
In addition, one would have to think that the engineer that designed many lifeforms, especially humans, was a complete moron. An unnecessary appendix that can get inflamed and explode? How about that non-sturdy knee? There are so many things wrong with the human body that it's not even funny.
As for the platypus thing: a duck is a bird, a platypus is a mammal. Stop being a tool.
LOL! You're coming along just nicely, Stout.
;D
Actually, everything about vestigial organs necessitates evolution. A perfect, unchanging creature cannot, over generations, evolve away a body part.
SHHHHHH! Don't ruin his chances!
LOL!
Seriously though, it'd be interesting to go back and see how creationists actually justify vestigial organs.
How would something get into the rock if it didn't live at the same time as....ugh....my head hurts.
As you said, he's just being a tool. The kind of tortuous self-denial of plain evidence is quite amazing, no?
Oh, but now the new theories are concrete? We take the new ideas of rust processes as fact, as does the author. What if tomorrow they're proved wrong. A scientific theory, insofar as it shows true, is assumed fact because, so far, it works. Evolution is the only theory taught because it's the only scientific theory available.
STOP! You're making too much sense!
^_^
You got it right. It's an Argument from Ignorance. He's saying "Well, don't be TOO sure abour your theories, it could be overturned in the future. Therefore, we must teach creationism!"
Lack of evidence for creationism doesn't prove evolution. But add that to the heaping mountains of evidence available for evolution, all the evidence that causes the scientific community to believe in it, and evolution is a perfectly acceptable theory.
I would also like to add that he's making the tacit assumption that evolutionists potentially being wrong gives him license to support creationism.
It's scary that he doesn't even realize he's talking about the exact same fallacy he's committing in the same sentence!
Unless this man is willing to deny the veracity of the electron theory, or the theory of relativity, or those theories about rust he mentioned, then he's a hypocrite.
He must also be willing to throw out the Bible and everything it says about Creationism. Since nobosy was around whenit was written, they can't be sure about its veracity. In fact, nobody can be absolutely sure that the Bible isn't significantly older than the oldest person alive today.
The door swings both ways.
It'd be unscientific to teach, in a biology class, anything other than evolution, until science comes up with an equivelant theory.
*GASP*
You're one of them! You're promoting scientism!
The evidence is not weak. Once again, there's A REASON evolution is the scientific community's explanation for life.
Ah, but not God's reasons! Therefore, it must be wrong!
LOL! I can defeat this right now! Suppose creationism is false! You wouldn't want to be teaching something false to our kids, would you? Of course not!
But Creationism does not have as much power to correlate and explain the data.
Ah, but you're ignoring God's Word! How can evolution take THAT into account?
la la la la la la la la la no empiricism la la la la la la la la la la la la!
Darwin believed in God, Spirit, and Providence. He believed God created very simple animal forms that mutate -- the "slight, purposeless variations in form" happen all the time -- and every once and a while perpetuate a beneficial mutation, causing change.
I thought Darwin finally dropped his belief in First Cause?
As this last chapter goes forward, the author goes on to list misapplications of Darwin's theories by various historical groups/figures in order to perpetrate crimes and atrocities, i.e. eugenics, laissez faire capitalism, etc. This is akin to saying we should have never split the atom because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
And I'm done.
So, who's more fallacious? Science or the moron supporting creationism?
Very good work. I don't think I could have done a better job. I'm a bit wary of looking through his stuff in more depth. If the kind of mind-numbing stupidity you addressed is the norm in that entire article, then really, is there any point?
I hope you enjoyed Stouthorn's assessment, n/a. It's a lot of work to sift through all that crap. Stouthorn should be slated for sainthood.
If you signed up, n/a, it might be easier for us to address specific questions you might have about the replies to this guy.
- Aric