quote:
WS: Here is the fallacy of your analogy, which I interpret to be a strawman argument, because you chose an unrelated example that is used to attack the real issue.
Let's pretend that you said 'faulty analogy' since that is the fallacy your describe.
quote:
I am proposing simply that the polls are useful to determine what people are thinking, not necessarily what is true or untrue about what is though about.
Not a problem.
quote:
If they think evolution is too weak to exclude creation science, then that is a reality evolutionists will have to deal with.
Problem. This sentence and your previous sentence are not compatible. The first denies that polls have any bearing on what is actual fact. The second sentence sneaks the idea back into the machinery.
You ARE using polls to determine a proper course of action, which is why my analogy is valid and not faulty. It is the same argument you use but with different values in key places. This is allowable. In both cases a public poll is used to determine a course of action. Perhaps I should substitute a disease such as cancer in place of an auto accident, because that takes away the sense of urgency. Otherwise, it is the same argument. I am not surprised that you object. But it is your formulation. You constructed the 'course of action via popular poll'.
quote:
It is evident a growing slight majority of Americans are favoring equal treatment, and that those more concerned about the issue are now becoming more involved in changing the situation in public classrooms.
You are again asking that theories be included for no other reason than public opinion. How can you on one hand make a statement like this and on the other claim that public opinion has nothing to do with what is true? It doesn't make sense.
quote:
Your scenario makes taking the advice of the professionals equal to a life or death choice, using an example of an injury to a child where there is no reasonable alternative but to seek medical help.
Ah.... I see. This is an emotional reaction to the life-or-death aspect of the analogy. Break it down into symbols. Put letters in there for the actual values. It is the same argument.
quote:
WS: The point is you expect standards to apply to others but not yourself.
What? Where did that come from?
quote:
It does matter what a majority of people believe, which preceeds legislation or becomes part of a culture. Most nations are full of people influenced by religion to the point they sometimes accept malnutrition in their children and shortened lifespans for all. They can't support their lifestyle scientifically, not explaining logically why they pour their milk over a stone elephant while babies are deprived of its nourishment.
And this is an argument for your position?
quote:
You believe evolution is supportable scientifically to the exclusion of anything creation scientists come up with?
No. Any creation scientist may come up with good data at time and is welcome to present it, but creationism as a science is ridiculous.
quote:
what logic lies in the automatic rejection of opinions when science-based opinion is linked up with religion in a manner that just shows agreement between their professional opinion and what the Bible says?
No logic at all, but I have never seen a case as you describe. Creation scientists don't point out consistencies with the Bible and science, they MANUFACTURE them-- usually by mutilating the science, and often the Bible as well.
quote:
It appears to me valid science fact is disregarded if it agrees with the Bible.
It isn't, IMO. There simply isn't much that does agree.
quote:
If that is acceptable, then western civilization should reject any laws on the books that agree with the Bible laws on the basis of the existence of agreement, not considering the merits of the laws in place.
Agreeing with the Bible is not grounds for discounting anything. As you said, merits must be considered. Nor is agreement with the Bible grounds for implementing anything, and these grounds are the only grounds creationists (mostly, in this country) have for their science.
quote:
As to supportability of a belief, certainly almost any belief can be supported scientifically if enough effort is expended, though it should be admitted there are avenues of research that are ignored because certain paths could support competing perspectives.
No it can't. That's the thing about science. Science appeals ultimately to things over which we have no control. That is why it works so well as a path to knowledge.
quote:
Note that within narrow science fields like paleontology, biological systematics professionals are at odds with that crowd, and some paleontologists don't agree with each other.
Oh my GOD!!!!! Really?????
quote:
If what they regard as immutable fact were just that, there would be no rift among those professionals.
I have never made this claim.
quote:
The reason there is disparity of beliefs is those beliefs are just that- beliefs-based on other beliefs, based on interpretations of data. The arguments are obviously over interpretations and conclusions, not the data. Faulty data is easily discovered and deleted, while the opinions born of such data can last beyond reason.
The reason there is a disparity of beliefs is that we are fallible creatures dealing with incomplete data. Big surprise. But because of this we need to include incomplete and self-contradictory-- in the absense of miraculous events-- theories with no supporting evidence-- in the absense of miraculous events-- in the classroom?
quote:
I don't care how many people believe creation should be taught along-side of evolution. If it cannot be supported by evidence it is not science. You are still confusing the issue. Or you have the belief that schools should teach whatever the general public wants, true or not. I hadn't thought of that. Is this your position?
WS: That is a fatal flaw if you are serious about defending evolution-only teaching in classrooms. Public opinion could easily arise to totally exclude evolution, regardless its truths. Creation science NEEDS evolution around as a whipping boy.
What? Is this relevant? Does this even address the point raised? Tired, perhaps, of addressing the issues?
quote:
But I have read articles from respected scientists that doubt evolution, yet they refuse to speculate on alternative explanations of origin of species.
Wanna point one out?
quote:
What I can say with confidence is that probably none of those students are prepared to deal with creationist theory, having only learned a little about evolution, easily thwarted by arguments that obviously engender great doubt and confusion for the holder of evolution-only knowledge.
You are probably right about students with only cursory knowledge of evolution being unable to deal with creationist theory. This is sad, since with moderate knowledge of evolutionary theory, creationist argument looks like raging idiocy.
This says a lot about the state of education in the US, but we don't disagree that it stinks.
What is curious is the implicit, at least, argument that we must include creationism in the curriculum so that students know how the deal with it when encountered. I have a hard time believing that you are serious. It strikes me as just another ploy to justify putting your faith in the classroom.
quote:
The current practice would be about equal to only presenting students with Amarican history with no mention of world history; only fiction novels to the exclusion of biographies in English-Lit.
This is the proper form of a false analogy. You have a history and a history. Both of these are factual (more or less). You have a novel and a biography, both of which rightly belong in English class. To these you compare a science with a not-a-science. See the difference?
quote:
One reason equal treatment must be resisted is that evolutionists fear the students will relate to and believe that which they oppose.
For me, I feel the schools are quite good at producing inferior education that we do not need to add more crap to the menu.
quote:
Those so affected won't be able to study it out enough to reverse the beliefs they formed, being beyond their active education phase of life.
Like hell.
quote:
I would point out that of the scientists that stick to their specialty, few are able to contend with scientists knowledgeable in multiple fields, accounting for the recent decade of serious debate losses by the best that evolutionists had to pit against creationists.
LOL... though I have never witnessed a debate in person, I have read a few transcripts. For your sake, lets hope those few were not a representative sample.
quote:
WS: Then you are either biased or not paying attention.
I have read every article posted to this board by creationists. And the topic has interested me since childhood, literally. You cannot accuse me of not paying attention, and, really, it is much more interested when someone tell me I am wrong than when someone agrees.
quote:
WS: Then you think your own "digging" is a suitable substitute for higher education in particular science fields mixed with years of practice and research and peer review?
I think it is all I've got.
By the way, this is a continuation of the ad hominem fallacy. It is not the person but the argument that matters. Have I discounted you for your lack of education in some field or other? Have I even asked?
quote:
I would think the best of your opinions would be but a shadow of what is really available.
Ad hominem. An attempt to discredit me? Feels like it. It always seems to come to this though.
quote:
I prefer to rest on the opinions of people who've paid the high price to be considered scientists whose opinions are more learned.
Not according to your previous posts.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 09-23-2002]
I'll debug for you.
™ Version 4.2