>>But to try to illustrate internal contradictions in a field by quoting its
>>practitioners implies that the critic knows something the people being
>quoted don't, >or has performed a more thorough analysis than they have.
> And that's the part
>>that destroys the credibility of these kinds of attacks.
><SNIP>
>
>Excuse me for butting in, but isn't this a classic case of the genetic
>fallacy?
I have the feeling I'm going to be sorry I asked, but what is the genetic
fallacy?
Seems to me that time would be better spent responding to content,
>rather than arguing that the critic has no right to criticize.
I'm not arguing that. See below.
Besides,
>much of the criticism has to do not with science, but with *logic*, which,
>I assume, is available equally to all.
>
>I'm a CPA; can I therefore point out only those logical errors or
>inconsistencies attributable to other CPA's?
>
You are quite welcome to criticize any field you choose to. However, if
you criticize a field that is not your own, you had better do your
homework. When young-earth creationists simply recycle one another's
arguments -- even the ones which have been refuted many times, that's not
doing your homework.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148