On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:52:39 -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.
Welcome back Pim!
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)
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.
How does that consitute drawing "a false picture of the opposing
argument"?
Maybe you could tell us all what is the *true* "picture of the opposing
argument"?
PM>Perhaps you should try to focus on arguments that are not based
>upon a careful selection of 'science dictionaries'
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 more on what 'naturalists' really say and believe ?
And how pray tell am I supposed to find out what "'naturalists' really say
and believe"? Send out a questionnaire to all of them?
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?
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what "'naturalists' really say and
believe" regarding their definition of "evolution"?
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------