Replies

I was actually responding to the statment made in 411, where the argument seemed to be how dare you question all of us geniuses.

The reference in that post appears to be to the vast preponderance of opinion in science, particularly. It is an argument from authority, yes, but from the only relevant authority. When I defend evolution, I am careful to cite this body of authority and the literature it has produced, not my personal prestige as a renowned scientist or thinker, having neglected to become either.

The attackers of evolution must cite the opinions of the tiniest handful of crackpots, witch doctors, or their own refusal to know or understand. Nevertheless, we are to believe that there is an injustice in not given the attackers an equal voice. But where is their evidence? What is their theory? Their dislikes are not science. Their ignorance is not science.

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

Anyway, your response to that post remains a classic of hypocrisy. Criticize for lack of imagination, then argue from incredulity!

Total BS. I do not have to accept your terms of the argument. I can say parts of evolutionary theory are wrong and not argue it from a scientific point of view, but rather a practical point of view.

What is BS is saying to question whether evolution is true or not has to be done on your terms. The arrogance is assuming science = truth and that arrogance is totally on your side.

There is no hypocrisy in saying scientists have this wrong. There are some things science(or should I say scientists) are no good at and the telling us how we got to be here is one of them.

Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck has said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."