No Arguments Here


This post has been merged into Darwin’s Dyke, posts that explore the weaknesses of Darwinism.

I recently read  someone’s claim [as borrowed from Stephen Jay Gould] that evolution is both a fact and a theory. The article concluded by saying:

“No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs. “

Note the straw man: “No evolutionary scientists…,” implying that there are no other sort of scientists [i.e.– creation scientists] or that there are no other sort of scientists which may be taken seriously.

Of course no evolutionary scientist doubts whether evolution occured, just as no creation scientist doubts whether creation occurred [we only debate how it occurred: theistic evolution, ex nihilo, et cetera].

Clever dodge, but simply stating that evolution is both fact and theory at the same time doesn’t make it so.

–Sirius Knott 

Read more about Darwin’s Dyke, posts that explore the weaknesses of Darwinism!

Advertisements

3 Comments Add yours

  1. nova says:

    Any more they have dropped the evolutionary part of this argument and say “no scientists doubt” But when you point to any of the 100s or 1000s of non evolution believing scientist like for example humphreys or gish the evolutionist will reply their science is flawed. When pressed for a reason they will reply along the lines of they do bad science. It becomes a circular argument in other words. Soon they jump in to ad hominem with you and start to question your credentials. So they go from straw man to ad hominem to a example of a bible believing scientist to ad hominem against you to personal insults. And never do answer your question to them as to why this scientists science is flawed.

  2. John says:

    I think the author is confused as to the actual meaning of the term “straw man argument”. With a straw man argument, one misrepresents the opponents position, and proceeds to attack the misrepresentation. Clearly, this is not the case here: the author of the article is not misrepresenting creationism (or evolution) that I can find. I cannot deny that the author makes a good point in stating that

    Of course no evolutionary scientist doubts whether evolution occured, just as no creation scientist doubts whether creation occurred [we only debate how it occurred: theistic evolution, ex nihilo, et cetera].

    The question obviously arises, then: which group do we consider credible and actually listen to? Do alchemists and chemists have the same credentials when the question is chemical reactions? No. Does NASA give equal weight to the calculations of both astrologers and astronomers when sending a probe to Mars? No. Why? Because one specialist is making logical observations of the physical and the other is, sadly, not.

    1. You’re making an appeal to authority, the same sort of consensus science that kept the world in the darkness of geocentrism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s