On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:28:42 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Now either those creationists are uneducated as to the multiple
>> definitions of the word 'theory' and which one actually applies when
>> one talks about the 'theory of evolution' (hint, it's not the
>> 'hypothesis of evolution' definition, which is what they push), or they
>> are deliberately misusing the word so as to push their dogmatic
>> approach to trying to make creationism seem like science.
> 
>   One big problem is that most creationists (and in fact most laymen,
> regardless of orientation) don't even understand what the theory of
> evolution is about. They attribute all kinds of misconceptions to it
> (and also deny many undeniable natural phenomena as being evolution).

That's certainly true - and a good demonstration as to why education is 
so very important.  (Of course, there are those who when it comes to 
evolution think of it not as 'education' but 'indoctrination' - oh the 
joys of having uneducated people make decisions).

>   Moreover, many ID proponents muddle the waters even more by mixing all
> kinds of natural sciences as being part of "evolution". You'll see them
> claiming that different fields of astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry,
> quantum mechanics, geology, paleontology and other fields of natural
> sciences are part of "theory of evolution", even though those have
> nothing to do with the theory, nor even with biology.

Yep.

>   Ironically, they not only vastly expand what their mythical concept of
> "evolution" covers, to include fields of science that have nothing to do
> with it, they on the other end deny natural phenomena which are part of
> evolutionary theory as being "evolution".
> 
>   I suppose this is a very typical case of building a straw man.

Many if not most of them probably haven't even read Darwin, but they 
argue against it based on what they imagine it says.

Jim

Post a reply to this message