We highly recommend an article in The Conversation titled How to slam dunk creationists when it comes to the theory of evolution. It was written by Paul Braterman, Honorary Research Fellow, University of Glasgow, and Professor Emeritus, University of North Texas, who sometimes enriches this humble blog with his insightful comments.
Braterman’s article is so good that the Discovery Institute has been motivated to argue against it in their creationist blog: Slam Dunk? Once Again, It’s the “Evolution Is a Theory” Thus “Overwhelmingly Supported” Fallacy. It has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Basically, he’s [Braterman] responding to the unsophisticated argument that since evolution is a “theory,” “we should be free to teach other theories alongside evolution in our classrooms.”
It’s hard to believe, but the Discoveroids claim they’re not guilty of that technique. They say:
Certainly, that’s not how we argue. See Casey Luskin’s post warning against the “just a theory” approach to critiquing evolution. [Link omitted.]
We’ve discussed that — see Klinghoffer: Evolution Is a Failed Theory. The Discoveroids have an argument technique which is far more slimy than simply saying “Evolution is only a theory.” As we pointed out, they confuse the issue with multiple definitions of “evolution,” then they do the same thing with multiple definitions of “theory.”
By the time they’re done, a “theory” could be anything at all, and therefore their own wild claims about the wondrous accomplishments of their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — also constitutes a “theory.” And that (they hope) will wedge open the school curriculum enough so all “theories” should be presented to the kiddies.
Okay, back to the Discoveroids. In further rebuttal to Braterman’s article, they quote Discoveroid Douglas Axe, who responded to Braterman’s article by posting some tweets. Here’s one of them:
The problem with Darwinism isn’t that it’s a theory, but rather that its proponents guard it so defensively. Must be a very weak theory.
Yes, dear reader, that is how the Discoveroids do science.
In conclusion, we suggest you read Braterman’s article. Then, if you’re in the mood for some heavy-duty eye rolling, read the entire Discoveroids’ post. We think you’ll agree that it’s thin gruel indeed.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.