EVOLUTION FOES SHALL NEVER SUCCEED (but they already have)

[John Grehan]

Stuart Poss wrote:


>Regretably, evolutionists do from time to time engage in sophism.  However,
>scientists are precluded from doing so, or at least they step outside the
>bounds
>of science in doing so.

That's simply a matter of ad hoc definition. There is nothing absolute to
necessarily define science as that without sophistry. And of course, what
is  specious reasoning to one may be sound argument to another. That aside,
Poss admits that there are creationists who engage in sophistry, and
evolutionists who engage in sophistry, so here there is no philosophical
demarcation between the two.

>Its important not to confuse convincing argumentation
>with falsifiability as used in the context of science, since it is
>precisely this
>kind of confusion to which creationists appeal.

It has been argued by philosophers of science that falisifiability is not
the last word on what science is or does. Further, much of what is
presented to students in the teaching of evolution is "convincing
argumentation. It seems (and again I am open to correction) that it is more
important to many evolutionists to not only have students become believers
in evolution, but also to have an unwavering faith in a particular model of
evolution (such as by centers of origin and natural selection) that they
are immediately resistant to the disease of dissenting views.


>Typically, scientists seek observations and general explanations of those
>observations that are immutable to transformations of perspective.  To the
>extent
>this is true for a given phenomenon, we can speak of scientific fact.  I
>believe
>most scientists would regard evolution by means of natural selection as such a
>fact and would further argue the rest are invariably shown simply wrong.

So it seems that according to the authority of Stuart Poss I am simply
"wrong" in not adhering to the view of "most scientists" of a claimed "fact".


> > I'm a bit lost on what "intelligence" has to do with the issue. Please
> clarify.
> >
>
>Think about it.

This seems to be a good example of sophistry. I ask a straightforward
question for clarification of a statement that is otherwise obscure in
meaning, and in response I am provided with an equally obscure directive.
Here is see no difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. No
wonder there is so much confusion about evolution in the US.

John Grehan