From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>At 06:08 PM 10/1/00 -0400, you wrote:
>>In a message dated 10/1/2000 3:00:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>rwein@lineone.net writes:
>>
>>
>> > Subj: Re: Michael Behe comments
>> > Date: 10/1/2000 3:00:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> > From: rwein@lineone.net (Richard Wein)
>> > Sender: evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>> > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:rwein@lineone.net">rwein@lineone.net</A>
>> (Richard
>> > Wein)
>> > To: evolution@calvin.edu
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: FMAJ1019@aol.com <FMAJ1019@aol.com>
>> >
>> > >Interesting website of our dear friend Wells:
>> > >
>> > >I noticed this error in logic made by our dear friend Behe:
>> > >
>> > >"Jonathan Wells demonstrates with stunning clarity that the textbook
>> > >examples Darwinists themselves chose as the pillars of their theory
>> are all
>> > >false or misleading. What does this imply about their scientific
>> standards?
>> > >Why should anyone now believe any of their other examples?"
>> > >
>> > >--Michael J. Behe, Professor Biological Sciences, Lehigh University,
>> > >Pennsylvania
>> > >
>> > >I am somewhat disappointed in Michael though.
>> >
>> > ID proponents *do* make a lot of logical errors, but I fail to see one
in
>> > the passage quoted above. Could you point it out for me, please?
>> >
>> > Richard Wein (Tich)
>> >
>> >
>>Ignoring for the moment the accusations, Behe seems to suggest that if
some
>>examples can be shown incorrect why should one believe any of the other
>>examples.
>
>Yes, it is a classical argument _ad hominem_.
But an argument ad hominem is not necessarily a logical error.
It is a logical error to say: "Some of his statements were false; therefore
his other statements are false."
It is not a logical error to say: "Some of his statements were false;
therefore I don't believe his other statements."
Perhaps it seems that I'm being pedantic. But there are plenty of occasions
on which IDers are guilty of clear logical errors, and it would be
unfortunate to weaken our criticisms of such cases by watering down the
meaning of "logical error".
Having said that, I think that Behe's argument is highly misleading. First,
I very much doubt the accuracy of the premise that all the textbook examples
are false or misleading. (But then, what does he mean by this? All the
examples in all the textbooks at all levels? Surely not!) Nevertheless,
there's no doubt that *some* textbook examples are false or misleading, and
attention has been drawn to this by Darwinists themselves, not least Stephen
Gould. (I'm using "Darwinist" here in the widest sense of the word, as
anti-evolutionists tend to do.) Gould shows how examples have simply been
copied from one textbook to another without much thought. Of course, this
sort of unthinking plagiarism is to be condemned, and I'd like to see
erroneous, obsolete examples replaced with valid ones as soon as possible.
If you've ever read Richard Feynman's account of his experiences on a school
textbook committee, you won't be surprised by the poor quality of textbooks,
and not only in biology. But it's hardly reasonable to blame all Darwinists
for the errors of a handful of textbook writers.
If there *is* a specific logical error, I think it's an error of
equivocation--conflating the authors of textbooks with Darwinists generally.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 09:25:10 EDT