Reflectorites
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:56:46 EST, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
[...]
SJ>Below is a report by Jonathan Wells tour of Arkansas, Kansas, Washington
>promoting his new book, Icons of Evolution, with one minor change.
[...]
HX>One thing was missing from your Wells material:
>
>Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
>devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
>Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When
>Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter
>a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for
>battle. J.Wells>>
>
>I wonder why that was?
Because Wells' personal religious views and motivation is *irrelevant* to
the *truth* of what he is saying.
Huxter here commits the logical fallacy known as "the genetic fallacy":
"This objection is an example of the logical fallacy known as the
genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is the mistake of confusing the
origin of a claim with its evidential warrant and undermining the
claim by calling attention to its origin. What is relevant to the
rationality of a claim is the evidence for that claim. The medieval
practice of alchemy was the basis for the modern discipline of
chemistry, but that would hardly be a good objection to raise
against the rationality of chemical theory. It makes no difference
whether a scientific theory comes from a dream, the Bible, or
bathroom graffiti. The issue is whether independent scientific
reasons are given for the theory." (Moreland J.P., "Scaling the
Secular City," 1987, p211)
In fact Huxter's argument (if one can even call it that) is actually a form of
ad hominem:
"The phrase arguments ad hominem translates literally as "argument
directed to the man." It is susceptible to two interpretations, whose
interrelationship will be explained after the two are discussed
separately. We may designate this fallacy on the first interpretation
as the "abusive" variety. It is committed when, instead of trying to
disprove what is asserted one attacks the person who made the
assertion. Thus it may be argued that Bacon's philosophy is
untrustworthy because he was removed from his chancellorship for
dishonesty. This argument is fallacious, because the personal
character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or
falsehood of what that individual says or the correctness or
incorrectness of that individual's argument. To argue that proposals
are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by
radicals (of the right or left) is to argue fallaciously and to be guilty
of committing an argumentum ad hominem (abusive). This kind of
argument is sometimes said to commit the Genetic Fallacy, because
it attacks the source or genesis of the opposing position rather than
that position itself. The way in which this irrelevant argument may
sometimes persuade is through the psychological process of
transference. Where an attitude of disapproval toward a person can
be evoked, it may possibly tend to overflow the strictly emotional
field and become disagreement with what that person says. But this
connection is only psychological, not logical. Even the most wicked
of men may sometimes tell the truth or argue correctly." (Copi
I.M., Introduction to Logic," 1986, p.92).
Huxter's (and other evolutionists) continuing attempts to rule objections to
Darwinism out of court without even being heard (by *any* means fair or foul),
further discredits his (their) cause. The obvious question is: why does he (they)
*need* to?
This is even more significant considering that as Scott L. Page Ph.D
(Anatomy & Cell Biology), Huxter probably has the highest biological
qualifications on this List, yet he hardly ever argues his case on scientific
grounds but relies mostly on crude ad hominems. Why?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 on 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 on 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)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 20:18:23 EST