Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Last Visible Dog
I only questioned if it is valid to attack a position by questioning the authors motives - seems like fallacious logic to me.

If we were creatures of pure reason it would be, but we are not.

The author asserts that "Darwinism is first and foremost a weapon against religion". There is no objective evidence provided in the article in support of such an assertion, and it appears to be a purely subjective determination. The author has implicitly imputed the most malicious of motives to the authors and proponent of the TToE by making such a claim. You're asking that he be granted license to do so by virtue of his credentials, and his own motives in doing so held beyond reproach. I don't see how there can be a civil debate on the content of the article under such circumstances.

533 posted on 09/28/2006 1:01:24 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies ]


To: tacticalogic
The author asserts that "Darwinism is first and foremost a weapon against religion". There is no objective evidence provided in the article in support of such an assertion, and it appears to be a purely subjective determination.

That is not true - the author provides some evidence in the form of a quote from a famous evolutionist. You do understand you are trying to argue against somebodies qualitative option. While I don't agree with everything is the article, you do seem to be misrepresenting what it says. Try using quotes. You have yet to provide supporting evidence for your claims.

699 posted on 09/29/2006 6:17:59 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson