Answering Sal, Round 3

Sal Cordova has yet another comment attempting to answer an argument I made (though it's in response to someone else bringing up my argument rather than to the argument itself. In response to another commenter who said, "Yes, because as Ed Brayton points out, almost every facet of science will contradict *someone's* religious beliefs. There would be nothing left to teach in science class if we avoided ideas that might be religiously sensitive", Sal wrote:

I doubt that. We have pictures of the world being round. Students can test claims of gravitational theory and electro-magnetic theory. Any pictures of the transitionals from LUCA (last universal common ancestor) to every major Phyla? Any ideas? No

Notice the non-responsiveness to the argument. Sal's original argument was that by teaching something that conflicts with a student's religious beliefs they are trying to change that student's religious views and therefore acting unconstitutionally. Indeed, this is the core of this "vise strategy" that he imagines is so powerful and has our side quaking in fear. But as I pointed out, nearly every scientific theory (not to mention ideas in history and the humanities as well) conflicts with the religious beliefs of at least some students.

And how does Sal respond? By changing the subject. His answer has nothing to do with his original argument and ignores completely the fact that many other theories, no matter how well supported he thinks they are in comparison to evolution, do conflict with the religious views of some students in public schools. So his argument has essentially collapsed into "it's unconstitutional to teach any scientific theory that conflicts with a student's religious beliefs...unless it's a theory that I think is true. If it's a theory that I think it's false, like evolution, then it's unconstitutional." The logical absurdity of that position need hardly be pointed out.

Bear in mind also the standard that Sal has set out for scientific theories, which is that they are either "proven fact" or they are "opinion". But since no scientific theory is considered "proven fact", his reasoning would assign them all to the category of "opinion" and put them in the same epistemological boat. Up to this point he has argued for a simple either/or dichotomy when determining the validity of a scientific theory rather than a continuum of certainty based upon a large number of factors.

Lastly, notice the absurdity of the standard he erects for giving credence to evolution as an explanation - he demands actual pictures of the Last Universal Common Ancestor, which must have existed, at minimum, some 600 million years ago. Need I point out how ridiculous such a standard is? I dare say it would be ridiculous to demand pictures of Jesus, a man who lived a mere 2000 years ago, much less an organism that existed at a microscopic level hundreds of millions of years ago.

We don't have Nobel laureates who profess belief in a flat earth, we do have Nobel laureates who doubt Darwin. We don't have physcians who profess belief in a flat earth, but we have 33% who doubt Darwin. This is not an insignificant amount of dissent from a knowlegeable segment of the population.

Now we've gone from a red herring argument to a naked appeal to authority, and an appeal to irrelevant authority at that. I don't know why creationists are so obsessed with Nobel prize winners. They make a huge deal out of calling Henry Schaeffer a "5-time (or 50 time, or whatever the latest claim is) Nobel Prize nominee" to make it sound as though his opinion in unassailable, but the man is a chemist. His training is not in any field relevant to evolution, and of all the Nobel prize winners who allegedly doubt evolution, is even a single one of them in a field where evolution is an issue at all?

The absurdity of it all can be seen in the fact that they casually dismiss over 99% of all biologists, anthropologists, geneticists and other scientists in actual evolutionary fields of study, yet they will shout from the rooftop with a megaphone when they find a chemist, an engineer, a mathemetician or a doctor who "doubts Darwin". Given the overwhelming acceptance of evolution in relevant fields of study, the last thing on earth a creationist ought to be doing is engaging in an argument from authority and there's only one reason why they continually do it - because their uneducated followers are easily impressed by credentials.

That's why so many creationists have resorted to faking their credentials, because nuts like Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh are given immediate credibility by the folks in the pews when they put "Dr" before their name, and never mind that their "doctorates" are worth less than a politician's promise. And the fact is that we have scientists with genuine degrees in relevant fields who doubt the theory of relativity and heliocentrism as well.

Why, then, does Sal not apply his reasoning in those situations as well? Because his arguments aren't sincere. It's not really about scientific theories that disagree with the religious beliefs of students, it's about scientific theories that conflict with his religious beliefs. His argument suddenly goes away in any other situation where it logically applies. This is what logicians call special pleading.

My point is, I think the otherside is coming to terms with the fact that cast ID and creationism as religion comes at price, and to their horror, their strawman version of ID (ID=religion) might be a more formidable weapon against them in a court of law than the real version of ID.

Is it possible that he really is this delusional? He's made an incredibly illogical argument that is so weak that he has to change the subject instead of answering the obvious logical objection. The people he claims couldn't or wouldn't answer his questions not only have answered them, they had already answered them when he began to crow about their alleged inability to do so. And now he claims we are are realizing in "horror" that he's right? The knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind, as Sal flails around and declares victory after getting pummelled. This isn't just a flesh wound, Sal. This argument is DOA.