Re: ID and Science

From: MikeBGene@aol.com
Date: Mon Jan 03 2000 - 14:09:35 EST

  • Next message: MikeBGene@aol.com: "Re: Many Worlds?"

    Me:

    >It would seem this would be just as intellectually satisfying as
    >thinking something just fell together in a way that happened to
    >make it more likely it would persist.
       
    Huxter4441:
      
    >Who is thinking that? What you are doing is constructing a strawman
    >argument. Common practice in creationist circles.
      
    Me:

    >Strawman begets strawman. People with beams in their eye ought not
    >complain about other circles. Next time, I'd suggest being more leary
    >of the bait. ;)
     
    Huxter:

    >Yeah... Sure.... Your strawman was in claiming that 'someone' thinks
    >'something just fell together'. That IS common in creationist circles.
    >Where was mine?

    From my perspective, you clearly implied the only thing to add to
    my posting was that a "supernatural entity did it!", and then with an
    arrogance that is typical of anti-design people, likewise implied it
    should be flippantly dismissed. Of course, these are my perceptions.

    But speaking of straw mans, in record speed, you just produced
    *another* one. You claim:

    >Your strawman was in claiming that 'someone' thinks 'something just fell
    >together'.

    But I didn't claim this, now did I? Perhaps you should read what is
    written. I wrote, as part of one complete sentence:

    "as thinking something just fell together in a way that happened to
    make it more likely it would persist."

    I realize anti-evolutionists commonly portray evolution as pure chance,
    but my portrayal includes natural selection - "in a way that happened to
    make it more likely it would persist."

    It is at least as valid to cast ID as "a supernatural entity did it!" as it
    is to cast
    Darwinian evolution as "something just fell together in a way that happened to
    make it more likely it would persist."

    >Next time, I'd suggest not using strawman statements.
     
    And I'd suggest you read what is posted. Your reply suggests you are
    driven by looking for buzz words that trigger the following argument:
    "That IS common in creationist circles." Apparently, the logic is
    to convince yourself a creationist ploy is in play and then rely on
    handy counter-creationist tactics. If you had simply bothered to calmly
    read what was posted, you would have spared yourself the irony
    of using a straw man to accuse me of using straw men.

    And I'd also suggest you practice what you preach.

    Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 03 2000 - 14:10:08 EST