>From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>
> > "In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that
> > convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse
> > once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the
> > way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they
> > are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A
> > real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to
> > prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely upon
> > enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official
> > story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
> > welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they
> > would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to
> > caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely
> > upon the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E.,
> > "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism,"
> > InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 2000, p.141)
>
>Johnson implicitly admits that his case against Darwinism is not based on
>scientific evidence (which as just as well, as he doesn't have any), but is
>based on the tone of the Darwinian arguments--rather like Bertvan, who bases
>her position on the politeness of the arguments, and Stephen Jones who is
>now emphasising "body language" and "attitude".
>
>Accusations of "propaganda" are easy to make, and are made by both sides. In
>the final analysis, what *should* count are the scientific arguments. If
>decisions are based on the scientific arguments, then evolutionists have
>nothing to fear. Unfortunately, however, the ID movement is very clever in
>its use of propaganda. (The evolutionist propaganda, as Johnson describes
>it, seems quite clumsy in comparison.) If only IDers could apply their
>cleverness to a genuine attempt at understanding the scientific arguments,
>then the issue could be quickly resolved.
Chris
I doubt it, because, even if they *understood* the scientific arguments,
they'd still be bound by religious preconceptions to reject them. Their
religious beliefs are, for them, more important than cognitive contact with
the facts involved.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 21 2000 - 01:38:28 EDT