>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.
SJ>...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)>>
PM>I am glad to see others describe your above argument so well. "A
caricature' avoiding to dealing with the real issues.
Stephen: <<As usual from you Pim, mere *assertions* with no evidence to back it up. >>
Your own words above show this behavior:
>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.
StephenL <<But please keep right on doing it! Apart from making my resolve stronger
than ever, uncommitted newcomers to this list may draw the conclusion (as
I originally did) that if evolutionists like yourself *do* only make
unsubstantiated assertions in place of well-reasoned and substantiated
arguments, then maybe that is all they *can* make!>>
That would be a very poor conclusion. Science is not based upon the person but on the argument. And science is not based upon strawman arguments like yours either.
PM>Why not adhere to how scientists use the term rather than rely on
>secondary sources that suit your argument?
StepheN :<<And how am I supposed to do that? Carry out a survey of all scientific
literature of "how scientists use the term" "evolution" and report back in
ten years?>>
There are other methods than this. Perhaps a study of the theory of evolution ?
Stephen: <<
But I don't have to. That's why we have dictionaries. The authors
themselves have done that for us. Moreover, those authors *are*
"scientists" themselves:>>
Dictionaries make for poor scientific sources. They tend to run behind the facts, are often sloppy.
Stephen: << Indeed, your request implies that you already know the answer. So why
don't *you* tell us "how scientists use the term""evolution"?>>
Certainly not using the strawman you tried to use.
Stephen :<<Your answer should explain how you, an *oceanographer*, are a greater
authority on "how" "evolution" "is really defined in science" than the the
scientist-authors of these three science dictionaries!>>
I am not claiming to be a greater authority on evolution. I am just pointing out that your (ab)use of the term makes for poor science.
SJ>How does that consitute drawing "a false picture of the opposing
>argument"?
PM>Because you focus on a caricature and you avoid dealing with how
>evolution is really defined in science.
Stephen : <<Why should three leading science dictionaries contain "a caricature" of
"evolution"? And why should this "caricature" of "evolution" be what
children are taught in their science classes from these dictionaries?>>
Science is hopefully not taught from dictionaries dear Stephen or we would be in big trouble. As I said, dictionaries make for poor understanding of science. THat why there are textbooks and journals.
PM>And concluded from them that they were therefor representative of
>the scientific thinking on the issues of evolution ?
Stephen : <<Yes. Have you got any sources *more* "representative of the scientific
thinking on the issues of evolution"?>>
Ever tried textbooks, scientific papers ?
PM>It would beat drawing a caricture of them would you not agree ?
Stephen :<< First, you have not established that it *is* a caricature. You have merely
asserted it on your own argument from (your) authority.>>
Is that not what you are trying to do ? Claim authority ?
Stephen : <<Second. As you well know, it is simply *impossible* for me to send out a
questionnaire to all naturalists to find out what they really believe about
evolution, so your request that I do so seems to be just a tactic to obscure
truth in this matter, not find it.>>
Non sequitor. There are other methods as well which can be applied. I suggest that your caricature is the real obscuring factor here.
Stephen : <<Third, why don't *you* state "what" *you* think "'naturalists' really say
and believe" about the defintion of "evolution."?>>
Certainly not your caricature.
PM>See why such arguments do not really work all that well ?
Stephen << No. Since you have not dealt with my "arguments", I can only conclude that
they "do...really work...well"!>>
YOu spend a lot of time defending something that "works so well" ? Why is that ? After all if they work that well, they should need no defending ?
Nice try dear Steven.