From: Chris Cogan <ccogan@telepath.com>
[...]
>Finally, did you even bother to read what Richard Wein (and I) had to say
>about the argument referred to in the title of this thread? Do you even
>*begin* to grasp why we hold such arguments in such low esteem? Doesn't it
>matter to you that ID theorists are using arguments such as that?
Chris, you must have missed Bertvan's recent post in which she stated that
she's not interested in the scientific arguments. She chooses between
different positions on the basis of the politeness of their proponents. So
the answer to your question is clearly "no".
>That they
>spout such arguments out at every opportunity without spending even a few
>*seconds* considering whether such arguments have any merit at all? I could
>give you example after example of arguments equally atrocious from
>Johnson's books (I've already mentioned a few and have analyzed at least
>one in some depth just recently).
>
>What we see from you is not recognition that these arguments *are*
>atrocious, but rather constant ignoring of your own claim that, "In the
>end it will be the arguments of each side that impress the public - not the
>credentials." The public, in general, does not care about the quality of
>arguments. That is why Johnson has so many followers. That is why Hitler
>had so many followers. Insofar as the public supports evolution at all,
>it's not because it understands and accepts the arguments. It's because
>scientists and intellectuals have accepted it and continue to support it.
Perhaps also some members of the public think that mainstream scientists are
more polite than IDers. ;-)
On a more serious note, there are undoubtedly people out there who *do* care
about the quality of the arguments but who have been taken in by the
deceptive arguments of the ID lobby. That's why I think it's necessary to
expose the ID propaganda for what it is, even at the risk of appearing
impolite.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 10:19:47 EDT