Critical Thinking Time
by MikeGeneJerry Coyne:
Is intelligent design (ID) merely a sophisticated form of biblical creationism, as most biologists claim, or is it science - an alternative to Darwinism that deserves discussion in the science classroom?
Okay class, it's time to put our critical thinking caps on:
As you can see, you must be especially careful any time an argument seems to be presenting you with only two options. Yet the way such attempts at persuasion are worded, we often feel compelled to respond in those terms. Imagine someone asking, "Are you with us or against us?" You might be tricked into deciding between those two options, but the best response would be to say, "Wait a minute! Those are not the only two possibilities."
Gee, now was that hard?
[HT to Mung]
June 1st, 2006 at 9:27 am
On any intelligent reading of the English one should come away with:
Is intelligent design:
1. biblical creationism in a sophisticated form?
2. science?
3. an alternative to Darwinism?
4. something most biologists claim is merely a sophisticated form of biblical creationism?
5. a topic that deserves discussion in the science classroom?
How one can reduce all that to a simple either/or proposition and come to a legitimate conclusion is beyond my rational ken.
Later in the same article Coyne decides to compare Darwinism to ID and thus presents readers with yet another false dilemma.
One wonders why Coyne didn't choose computer programs as the set of things to be explained and then compare Darwinism to ID as competing explanations.
What would you like to wager that you can find "creationists" making arguments similar to Coyne's, though against evolution, and then find evolutionists pointing out how such arguments are illegitimate.
Comment by Mung — June 1, 2006 @ 9:27 am
June 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
"She's my daughter."
Slap!
"She's my sister."
Slap!
"She's my daughter and my sister."
Slap! Slap! (From the movie, "Chinatown.")
Comment by Bilbo — June 1, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
[...] Call me nit-picky, but more than anything else, I hate the way that creationists– oh, sorry, ID theorists– pervert the thinking process. I am quite convinced that this is the primary danger of such quack science endeavors. See, to support a proposition that does not make sense, one has to make sense, not make sense. MikeGene provides me with an example while pretending to be arguing for rational thought– Critical Thinking Time. I'll call it the MikeGene Method for the Perversion of Logic. [...]
Pingback by hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Yes, lets do put on our thinking caps. — June 2, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:39 pm
"I'm an IDist."
Slap!
"I'm an Evolutionist."
Slap!
"I'm an IDist and an Evolutionist."
Slap! Slap!
(Just in case anyone missed my point.)
Comment by Bilbo — June 2, 2006 @ 4:39 pm