|
|
|
|
1/1/03 Rhetorical Design Those who advocate the Intelligent Design pseudo-theory to explain major developments in the history of life are fairly well exposed as propagandists by their rhetorical methods. Thomas Woodward's book, Doubts about Darwin, touts itself as an analysis of rhetorical techniques employed in the debate, but it is fairly transparent in advocating the Design theory. It praises the most dishonest rhetorical strategies employed by the Design proponents over the years. Fortunately, it is not difficult to wade through the fulsome praise of propagandists to find all the evidence needed to show that there is no scientific basis for Design theory or its explicit criticisms of a scientific theory. The most rhetorically effective technique used by Design proponents, according to Woodward, is to quote scientists' words without any proper context, either to show that evolutionary scientists have admitted that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed or to trap them and prove that the theory has been refuted. For example, one of their favorite tricks is to quote Darwin, who gave birth to evolutionary theory and helped it survive into its childhood, as if there has been no progress in the understanding of biology, zoology, or paleontology since his own day. One of his heroes, Phillip Johnson, analyzes Darwin and points out that the theory was argued mostly by analogy, since there was not great evidence of natural selection at the time. But now, since the discovery of the media of genetic inheritance and numerous transitional forms in the fossil record, there has been much evidence that tends to confirm the general premise, if not the specific mechanisms as he described them, of the theory. Stephen Jay Gould, among others, has stated numerous times that the old idea of gradual evolution is not supported by the fossil record, since we don't see species slowly drifting into one another (with one prominent contrary example being the evolution of hominids into modern humans, which is fairly well documented and shows a fairly smooth transition, in geological terms). This language by Gould, which was always intended as a spur to considering new scientific ideas of how it all might have happened, is twisted by the Design proponents to make it seem that Gould argued that evolution didn't happen. That is the opposite of the truth. That would be a little like quoting a meteorologist as having said that it is difficult to accurately predict the weather, and arguing that he has thus admitted that there is no point in studying meteorology, because it is not perfect. What he means is that there is work to be done. The rhetoric of the Design movement is full of ad hominem fallacies, as if evolutionary scientists who have concluded that the theory is inadequate are more to be trusted than those who have not. What they don't admit in any of these cases is that the quality of an idea, as the rules of logic dictate, cannot be evaluated by reference to the person who presents it. They can speculate about motives, trying to imply that the people who "cling" to the theory are like desperate religious fundamentalists clinging to ancient and backward beliefs. But that doesn't change the fact that any scientist who says evolutionary theory is not yet a fact is telling the truth, so long as he is willing to admit that gravity is not, either. If she goes one step further and declares that the evidence indicates that some magical supernatural being created life, she is no longer a scientist. Period. The Design movement rests also on false premises. The proponent will carefully outline a fundamental misunderstandings of evolutionary theory and then set diligently about proving it wrong. Woodward's heroes win great praise, for example, for going to great lengths to prove to evolutionary scientists that they are hopelessly mired in a narrow-minded philosophy of naturalism. But there is no revelation there, since every basic science textbook that is worth opening will declare that on page one. Every scientific hypothesis, theory, and experiment rests on that philosophy. It would be like revealing to truck drivers that every single one of them depends for their livelihood on being licensed by the states to drive a truck. The natural reaction in my generation when I was growing up would have been: "Duh!" They take great pains to lay out the supposed evolutionary claim that "natural selection" is a creative process, and then they show that natural selection can only select from among variations that already exist within populations. Duh! But evolutionary theory already takes that into account (mutations drive evolution, natural selection only steers), and the point can hardly be missed except by fools or by charlatans like Design proponents who intentionally pick out half of the important information, misstate it, and spend nearly 100% of their time destroying their own misshapen straw men. It is possible that the Big Juju created the universe and life with a magic wand. But there is no empirical evidence that tends to suggest so. Therefore it cannot be scientific to argue that she did, and it can only be unscientific to argue that there is no other possible explanation. Modified: 09/05/2004 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|