h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There exist myriad arguments against evolution, some of which are quite convincing. I do not doubt that in a debate against an experienced creationist any layman, and probably many scientists would be crushed.

For an analogy, imagine a debate against a member of the Flat Earth Society. Surely his views would be preposterous, but any layman debating him would be overwhelmed by carefully thought-out, well-put arguments. Given time, a bit of understanding and an intense desire to arrive at a particular conclusion, one can make convincing argument for anything.

While the above is certainly not a refutation of the author's arguments, I feel it shows the weakness of the dialectic as a truth-finding procedure and the need to take such arguments with a grain of salt.

Finally, I'll recommend the book "Complexity" to anyone doubting that something as complex as life could arise spontaneously. Actually, in "The Salmon of Doubt," DNA very briefly mentions the theory "Complexity" describes.

Good points there...

Oooh Niiiiice Researcher Number there. 222000. Nice one.

I have to say, I disagree (you'd be disappointed if I didn't... )

"There exist myriad arguments against evolution, some of which are quite convincing."

Convincing to whom? Unless the answer is "a biologist", then it's irrelevant. There exist myriad arguments against Newton's laws of motion, some of which are quite convincing - to a four year old child. What does that prove? That I'm selective who I try to convince of nonsense.

"I do not doubt that in a debate against an experienced creationist any layman, and probably many scientists would be crushed."

And I do not doubt that in a fight against a three-years experienced practitioner of Tae Kwon Do, any layman, and probably many boxers, would be beaten up. Put your Tae Kwon Do man up against a master of, say, Tai Chi Chuan, and call an ambulance.

(I'm flattering the creationist here - Tae Kwon Do practitioners, please don't take offense!)

And put the experience creationist up against an experienced biologist. Compare like with like, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time with special pleading.

"For an analogy, imagine a debate against a member of the Flat Earth Society. Surely his views would be preposterous, but any layman debating him would be overwhelmed by carefully thought-out, well-put arguments."

Then don't put him up against a layman. Put him up against an astronaut. Why give him any advantage?

"Given time, a bit of understanding and an intense desire to arrive at a particular conclusion, one can make convincing argument for anything."

Only to oneself. Convincing OTHERS, and making sure those others are experts with a vested interest in pulling holes is your argument, is the test of the argument's true validity. That's how science works - it's called Peer Review...

"While the above is certainly not a refutation of the author's arguments, I feel it shows the weakness of the dialectic as a truth-finding procedure and the need to take such arguments with a grain of salt."

Well, make sure you check out the refutation article, linked to from here.



H.

Y'know, I was so dazzled by his Unumber, I forgot to read what he said.

That kind of argument is called "Jesuitical", funnily enough; it's the kind of behaviour that gave the Jesuits a bad name.