Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 225:
Line 225: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Where the controversy is - and what it's about
Oh, and for my fellow evolution-believing friends, the whole peppered moth thing might be a bit of an over-broad example. I personally would not use it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and for my fellow evolution-believing friends, the whole peppered moth thing might be a bit of an over-broad example. I personally would not use it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
== Where the controversy is - and what it's about ==
''there really is no controversy in science, evolutionary or otherwise, about this term''
This is a favorite line of liberals about science. Whether it's global warming, DDT, dioxins, secondhand smoke, or whatever, they always claim that '''scientists''' are not disputing the proposition. It's only you anti-scientific r's and c's.
I can't count how many fallacies are in this argument, but it starts with ''[[ad hominem]]'' of course. About on the level of, "Bush is an idiot."
More to the point, there is indeed a controversy in public discourse over what a theory is, and over whether evolution is a theory. There's also a controversy over whether the [[Theory of Evolution]] is correct. Supporters of [[Intelligent Design]], rare though they may be, have advanced at least one argument against "[[Evolution through natural selection]]". No encyclopedia would be complete without presenting their argument, which centers on [[Irreducible complexity]].
Now, I am not pressing any point. I'm certainly not arguing for or against either Evolution or ID on this page. I don't have time for that.
But I'm begging you all to be careful about how you use language. That's all.