[...]
>
>Very good. It's really "Catch-22" logic:
>
> 1. Only scientific experts can evaluate evolutionary theory.
Here's my $ 0.02 worth. Anyone who wants to can evaluate or
criticize any theory they want and they can do so using any
methods or sources they want. This reflector and talk.origins
are ample evidence of this :-). But if you're not knowledgeable
in the field and your sources of information are bad and your
research is sloppy then you definitely will be shot down in
flames. Further, you'll look even sillier if you start whining
about it: "Mommy mommy, those mean scientists are picking on me
because I'm not as good as them". "Now now dear, hasn't mommy
always told you to do your homework?".
I think this is what it usually boils down to. People get
shot down and they don't like it (understandably :). Rather
than own up, they want to blame someone else. This is the
"its not my fault" generation.
The issue of origins is obviously an emotional one and its
understandable that so many laymen want to get involved in
the discussion. I should know, although I try to do my
homework I'm still a layman when it comes to practically
every topic discussed here. But the simple fact of the
matter is that there really is a type of catch 22 involved.
If you want to speak knowledgebly on a subject then you
have to devote a lot of energy at becoming knowledgeble
of that subject. These days that's really tough. To tell
you the truth, I would not feel competent to judge the
value a research proposal written by one of my colleagues
in the office next door, much less that of an evolutionary
biologist.
It is true that Denis (and yours truly) have been very rough
on Steve Jones. But don't lose sight of the fact that there
has been more to Denis's replies to Steve than rough talk.
Steve has been debunked over and over but he keeps repeating
the same stuff. Its very frustrating. A frustration greatly
accentuated by the fact that Steve believes the frustration
arises due to his brilliant arguments. You know, those
brilliant arguments that keep getting refuted over and over. ;-)
It may well be true that one can make reasonable arguments
without being an expert and by using secondary sources.
But you're taking a big chance and if turns out that your
arguments are bad and your sources are faulty then you
have only yourself to blame for it.
> 2. To be an expert, you must have an advanced degree.
Not true. I've known experts in my own field who didn't have
an advanced degree, I've also known PhD's who were incompetent.
> 3. To obtain an advanced degree, you must buy into evolutionism.
There are many examples, some on this reflector, that prove
this statement to be false. But I think what is really
bugging you is that most who do devote the time and
energy to studying evolution end up accepting it. Since
evolution is obviously false, there must be some evil
plot, a secret oath one must take to become part of the
priesthood.
> 4. Thus, *all* experts agree on "the fact of evolution."
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the
"the fact of evolution" as opposed to the "the theory of
evolution"?
Here's a nice analogy to consider. Would it bother
you at all to know that even though plasticity in metals
is a well established empirical phenomena and there are
many mechanisms that have been proposed to explain it,
there is still no general theory of plasticity capable
of predicting the behavior? Nevertheless, the fact that
metals display plastic behavior is still a fact. I assure
of this with the authority that only a High Priest could
muster. But you probably don't care, right?
> 5. Therefore, evolution is a fundamental, unarguable truth.
>
>Neat, huh?
>
Yea, neat.
========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================