tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post110943774629934358..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: Evolving LiesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-1109726566556913072005-03-01T19:22:00.000-06:002005-03-01T19:22:00.000-06:00Your use of the word "evolutionists" is itself lin...Your use of the word "evolutionists" is itself linguistically dishonest by your own standards, which is pretty ironic considering the point of your column. Technically speaking, there is no "theory of evolution," thus there is no group who can honestly be labeled as those-who-believe-in-the-theory-of-evolution, i.e., "evolutionists."<br /><br />If you want to dictate terms on the use of language in the science vs. superstition debate, you should already know that evolution is an empirically observed <I>fact,</I> and that natural selection is the best <I>theory</I> anyone's come up with to explain it. If you insist on labeling the overwhelming majority of biologists in the world today on the basis of their shared support of a well-established scientific theory in order to better mock them, it would be more honest to use some <I>other</I> made-up, not-really-a-word like "natural-selectionists." Not as catchy, huh?<br /><br />Words like "good," "bad," and "selfish" are used as rhetorical shortcuts to get a particular point across, just like your phrase "illegal kidney punch," which you obviously didn't mean in any literal way. It is not warranted to ascribe any more importance to these words than that. If you had any intent of making honest and substantial criticisms, you should be trying to understand what people like Darwin and Dawkins <I>mean</I> by their words, and not just what the words <I>literally say.</I> The fact that you spend 80%-90% of your column on these ridiculous language issues is a sign that you have nothing much to add to this debate.<br /><br />There are much more serious errors, too. For example, you're basically on the right track with:<br /><br /><I>There are no good or bad traits. There are traits that survive and traits that do not survive.</I>And then you go and make a groundless logical leap like:<br /><br /><I> Everything is just a random swirl of chemicals, no meaning, no purpose, no end, no "higher forms" versus "lower forms" of life. Even life is not better or worse than being an inanimate object. Everything just is.</I>Science in general and natural selection in particular make <I>no claims</I> about the "meaning" or "purpose" of the things they study. That doesn't mean that life is meaningless and it doesn't mean that life is meaningful; it just means that science doesn't have anything to say either way on the matter. Your insistence on reading a meaning into this silence is a common, perhaps a natural, mistake. But it's a doozy anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-1109689352076861782005-03-01T09:02:00.000-06:002005-03-01T09:02:00.000-06:00Dear Jared and Steve,
It really it amusing when s...Dear Jared and Steve,<br /><br />It really it amusing when simple people like yourself attempt to put together a rational argument!<br /><br />Keep on keeping on! The entertainment value is priceless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com