dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/23/85)
> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > Hey Paul! > So you still insist on playing cheap debating games?! I thought maybe you needed some company! > Why are you excusing your vagueness/ambiguity by saying that > evolutionists do it too? Is this valid? Really, Mr. Dubois! I'm not excusing myself, I'm saying that while such might be true for me, it is also true of you. The inference that I'm making an excuse is incorrect. > You also have missed the point of scientists' request that > creationists specifically define their position. Just signing > the CRS declaration does not provide that at all. The CRS > statements are totally unscientific. (see my next article) I stated that I would comment on the question of whether I would sign the statement. I answered the question. The question was not whether the statement was scientific, so I didn't answer it. Missing the point? Physician, heal thyself. > When we demand your position, we are only asking for your > theory, in specifics, so that we may evaluate the scientificness > that you claim to reside in your position. (We ARE talking > about science, aren't we?!) Science cannot accept something > until it is fully evaluated for its scientific content and > usefulness. Thus far, the very little specifics that are > presented by creationists do not qualify as science. If you > must be so persistent in supporting your position as science, > then you had better substantiate it. I notice, while you're foaming at the mouth from the effort required to make your rhetoric as imflammatory as possible, that you have said only WHAT you believe, and absolutely nothing about HOW it happened. Which is exactly what I pointed out. So calm down a little. You've got some worthwhile things to say (e.g., your comments on "the God question"), but you make them so difficult to find by packaging them in napalm. > Since you insist on turning the tables around to confuse the > issue, I will remind you that science has already accepted > evolution, and it is certainly not in question by scientists. So what? Really. So what? What kind of argument is that? Next you'll be saying that science is static, and perpetuated by transmission of the orthodoxy. In addition, I didn't "turn the tables" to confuse the issue. I did it to point out that your own charges of unclarity apply to yourself and others who share the evolutionary viewpoint. Address yourself to that. > Whatever hotly debated theories concerning mechanisms/rates > are also within the framework of science. Creationism, on > the other hand has yet to be accepted by science at all! Well, from the glee with which some evolutionary writers (J. Huxley, for example) heralded the "liberation" of science from its religious framework, one would get the idea that science was at one time done from within that framework. And what did that framework have to say about creation? It was accepted. > We still find it ridiculous and unfounded in science. You can > sidetrack and blab about fairness or intolerance or whatever, > but that won't help creationism become scientific. Of course it won't. That's why I didn't talk about fairness or intolerance. Read things before you reply to them. > Creationism is still being considered as a whole. Therefore, > it must have some unifying specifics to start with. No one > has come up with that yet. What are you waiting for? This is > why some people, including myself, have speculated that you > are simply leaving it vague, so that in a political arena, > creationism becomes difficult to challenge. Then you may demonstrate my involvement in political affairs. Otherwise you're just, as you say, speculating, and that's all. Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to challenge. You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and attacking creationism on that ground. Your refute yourself! > Despite the praises given by others of your intelligence/etc... > I have yet to see you tackle the problem of the creator, as > I have presented numerous times. It is a very simplistic > problem that seriously jeopardizes the creationist theory's > attaining scientific status. (This topic will be posted > again for reference.) While I don't agree that it's a simplistic problem or that it is necessarily unscientific, you do well to emphasize it. > I can assure you that keeping us in suspense does not help > your position at all. I can also assure you that your latest > article explaining some of your points and making some silly > accusations at evolutionists does not support your position > with any real evidence. Since I did not claim that it did, I'm not quite sure how to reply to that. I notice as well that you have not responded to my "accusations" (as you call them; they weren't - just observations) except to call them "silly". That is no rebuttal at all. It is plain to see that my observations apply to you as well as they do to anyone (myself, for example) and that they remain outstanding. > You have simply made vague assertions > and proclaimed your righteousness based upon the denigration > of your opposition. Well, I thought my assertions were fairly specific. Maybe they weren't, I don't know. The rest of the your sentence is a bit intemperate, as well as untrue and unnecessary. I guess I would characterize it as, um, drivel. Religious-sounding drivel at that! -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/25/85)
In article <822@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > > So you still insist on playing cheap debating games?! > I thought maybe you needed some company! It seems obvious to me that Paul is gratified by pulling our tails. Instead of focusing the debate on the subject, he is trying to defocus as much as possible onto trechnique of argument. And he's not even doing that well. > > Why are you excusing your vagueness/ambiguity by saying that > > evolutionists do it too? Is this valid? Really, Mr. Dubois! > > I'm not excusing myself, I'm saying that while such might be true for > me, it is also true of you. The inference that I'm making an excuse > is incorrect. Denial of the tu quoque fallacy of argument doesn't make it any less so. You are merely evading admitting that your argument was wrong. > Well, from the glee with which some evolutionary writers (J. Huxley, for > example) heralded the "liberation" of science from its religious > framework, one would get the idea that science was at one time done > from within that framework. And what did that framework have to say > about creation? It was accepted. Oh, was it accepted? Science (as we now think of it) is fairly recent. I think a pretty fair argument can be made that science was done in spite of that obstructing framework. Great advances were almost always made by rejecting applicable parts of the framework. Nor were the Galileos and Darwins the only scientists who rejected the religious framework. > Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own > destruction. Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to > challenge. You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and > attacking creationism on that ground. Your refute yourself! So eager to goad, you leap into erroneous arguments. Difficult is not impossible. No self refutation occurred there. Sheesh. I think, Paul, you'd enjoy reading about the Forteans. They operate in much the same vein as you do. You can get a start in Martin Gardiner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh