On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:27:13 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>If we fall in with the naturalists trick of defining evolution so broadly
>>that it cannot be false and creation so narrowly that it cannot be true, as
>>in the following science dictionaries, then we have lost almost before we
>>start. All the naturalist has to show is *some* change over time in *one
>>species* and "evolution" has won and "creation" (defined as "special
>>creation") has lost!>>
>PM>You surely make some poor strawman arguments. arguments.
SJ>...A "strawman argument" is defined by Geisler as "to draw a false
>picture of the opposing argument":
>
>"Straw man. Another way to stack the deck against the opposition is to
>draw a false picture of the opposing argument. Then it is easy to say,
>"This should be rejected because this (exaggerated and distorted) picture
>of it is wrong." The name of the fallacy comes from the idea that if you
>set up a straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real man. And that
>is exactly the way this fallacy works: set 'em up and knock 'em down. It is
>argument by caricature. It avoids dealing with the real issues by changing
>the opposition's views." (Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us
>Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," 1990, p101)>>
PM>I am glad to see others describe your above argument so well. "A
caricature' avoiding to dealing with the real issues.
As usual from you Pim, mere *assertions* with no evidence to back it up.
But please keep right on doing it! Apart from making my resolve stronger
than ever, uncommitted newcomers to this list may draw the conclusion (as
I originally did) that if evolutionists like yourself *do* only make
unsubstantiated assertions in place of well-reasoned and substantiated
arguments, then maybe that is all they *can* make!
>SJ>I have supported my argument from three leading Science
>dictionaries. These dictionaries are used extensively in schools in
>Australia (and I presume other parts of the world) and the defintion of
>"evolution" in them would presumably be the ones the students would be
>taught.
PM>Why not adhere to how scientists use the term rather than rely on
>secondary sources that suit your argument?
And how am I supposed to do that? Carry out a survey of all scientific
literature of "how scientists use the term" "evolution" and report back in
ten years?
But I don't have to. That's why we have dictionaries. The authors
themselves have done that for us. Moreover, those authors *are*
"scientists" themselves:
1) The Penguin Dictionary of Biology. The authors: "M.
Abercrombie...was Professor of Embryology and then Professor of
Zoology at University College London..."; "C.J. Hickman was Professor of
Plant Sciences at the University of Western Ontario"; "M.L.
Johnson..taught zoology at Birmingham University." (Abercrombie M.,
Hickman C.J., & Johnson M.L., "The Penguin Dictionary of Biology,"
1985, reprint, p1)
2) The Oxford Concise Science Dictionary: does not have biographical
details about the authors but lists them as "Alan Isaacs BSc, PhD, DIC",
"John Daintith BSc, PhD" and "Elizabeth Martin MA." (Isaacs A., Daintith
J. & Martin E., eds., "Concise Science Dictionary," 1991, pvi)
3) The Collins Reference Dictionary of Biology: authors are Professor
W.G. Hale, B.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc., F.I.Biol., is Dean of the Faculty of Science
and Head of the Department of Biology at Liverpool Polytechnic;" and "Dr
J.P. Margham, B.Sc., Ph.D., Dip.Gen., M.I. Biol., is Principal Lecturer and
Course Leader for the B.Sc. Honours Applied Biology Degree at Liverpool
Polytechnic." (Hale W.G., & Margham J.P., "Collins Reference Dictionary
of Biology," Collins: London, 1988 reprint, p.i)
Indeed, your request implies that you already know the answer. So why
don't *you* tell us "how scientists use the term""evolution"?
Your answer should explain how you, an *oceanographer*, are a greater
authority on "how" "evolution" "is really defined in science" than the the
scientist-authors of these three science dictionaries!
SJ>How does that consitute drawing "a false picture of the opposing
>argument"?
PM>Because you focus on a caricature and you avoid dealing with how
>evolution is really defined in science.
Why should three leading science dictionaries contain "a caricature" of
"evolution"? And why should this "caricature" of "evolution" be what
children are taught in their science classes from these dictionaries?
>PM>Perhaps you should try to focus on arguments that are not based
>>upon a careful selection of 'science dictionaries'
>SJ>I did not make a "careful selection of 'science dictionaries'". They are
>the *leading* Science dictionaries available in bookstores in Australia
>(and I presume other parts of the world) that I had on my bookshelves. I
>simply turned to their definitions of "evolution" and scanned them in.>
PM>And concluded from them that they were therefor representative of
>the scientific thinking on the issues of evolution ?
Yes. Have you got any sources *more* "representative of the scientific
thinking on the issues of evolution"?
>PM>and more on what 'naturalists' really say and believe ?
>SJ>And how pray tell am I supposed to find out what "'naturalists' really
>say and believe"? Send out a questionnaire to all of them?>
PM>It would beat drawing a caricture of them would you not agree ?
First, you have not established that it *is* a caricature. You have merely
asserted it on your own argument from (your) authority.
Second. As you well know, it is simply *impossible* for me to send out a
questionnaire to all naturalists to find out what they really believe about
evolution, so your request that I do so seems to be just a tactic to obscure
truth in this matter, not find it.
Third, why don't *you* state "what" *you* think "'naturalists' really say
and believe" about the defintion of "evolution."?
>SJ>If these definitions of "evolution" do not reflect what "naturalist
>really...believe", then why is that definition substantially the same in all
>three Science dictionaries?>>
PM>Why do I keep finding the same old refuted creationist arguments all
>over the web ? Does this prove that creationism is inherently dishonest ?
Please answer my question first, and don't try to change the subject! We
are talking about "substantially the same" definitions of "evolution" "in
all three Science dictionaries" *not* what arguments creationists use.
PM>See why such arguments do not really work all that well ?
No. Since you have not dealt with my "arguments", I can only conclude that
they "do...really work...well"!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------