email - May 2013

Vague Accusations

Alex makes vague accusations.

In our feature article we mentioned that evolutionists typically make the claim that our website contains numerous unspecified errors. As it happened, we received this email while writing that article.

From: Alex
To: Pogge@scienceagainstevolution.info
Subject: Evolution
Date: Monday, April 29, 2013 2:15 AM

Hello.

Your article, http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v13i8f.htm, is so horribly incorrect, that I had to take time out of researching this topic to let you know.

I won't go into any intrinsic details on the flaws in your arguments, but I did think I should let you know that citing articles and sources posted on your own website, most of which appear to be written by yourself, is not academic, and should not be done in an attempt to fool people into believing your work is quality research in any way.

I do hope someday you see the error in your ways.

Alex

The article to which Alex is referring is our May, 2009, article, “Why Evolution is False.” It was Part 2 of our two-part review of Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True.

There were 22 footnotes in that article. Four of the footnotes were references to previous articles we had written on the subject. They were neither quoted nor cited as proof. They were simply included as a courtesy to readers who might want to get more information on the topic. By some strange quirk of math, Alex considers 4 of 22 to be “most.”

The remaining 18 footnotes (the minority, by Alex’s reckoning) tell the page of Coyne’s book containing the quote we found to be in error.

Unlike Alex, we did not simply dismiss Coyne’s book by saying it is “horribly incorrect” (despite the fact that it is horribly incorrect). We gave specific examples of statements Coyne made and our responses to those statements.

Also typical of the email we get is Alex’s criticism of our approach rather than our content. Our approach is, “not academic.” Apparently Alex doesn’t consider it to be good scholarly practice to state specific areas of disagreement and present a rational argument explaining what is wrong with an erroneous view. If Alex’s email is any indication, the scholarly approach is to belittle the opponent and beg him to see the error in his ways. We should simply agree with Alex that there are lots of unspecified flaws in our arguments because Alex knows so much more than we do.

We love to print emails containing specific flaws in our arguments; but we rarely get them. We have printed every one we have ever gotten, even though they are generally intentional attempts to misinterpret what we have written.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
Disclosure
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index