The evolutionist arguments remind one of the global warming thing. It's accepted as the great what is and ever will be regardless of actual data supporting it. The argument for evolution is another one of those points that can bring together polar political, socioeconomic opposites.
Exactly--it's akin to Obama saying "the debate over global warming and whether it is manmade is over--science has already proven it to be beyond debate."
That's so wrong that it's funny.
It's actually dead right. Look at how Darwinians defend their case: by employing fallacy after fallacy, including heavy appeals to authority. In fact "Origins" by Darwin begins with an obvious fallacy on its title page (the tautology that the fittest survive and the fittest are those who leave the most off-spring!) We've been told repeatedly in this thread that evolution must be true because the majority of scientists say it is. This is an elementary logical fallacy, but it's exactly the same fallacy employed time and again in defense of AGW. That is a fact, however much DBT wants to wish it away. Obama's quote on the science of AGW is something defenders of Neo-Darwinism do all the time. We've heard it time and again "the science is settled" and 97% of scientists believe in man-made, catastrophic global warming. Defenders of Neo-Darwinism constantly employ the exact same fallacy. Yet as every logician (or philosopher of science) with an IQ higher than an ant understands, truth is not determined by consensus. It has been said that you don't need to know much about neo-darwinism to know it probably isn't true---just look at how its defenders argue their case! When you are forced to resort to ad hominem marginalization, appeals to authority (which DBT and other defenders of Neo-Darwinism have done repeatedly in this thread---just as defenders of AGW constantly do) when these tools are employed by the proponent of an argument it's practically a confession that the argument the person is defending is not defensible.
