Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
The referenced article may not mention the authors belief, but the article itself certainly addresses hidden motives. In fact, the conclusion aimed at in the case of Dr. James Shapiro would be to assume hidden motives since he uses the word "Darwinists" which according to Amanda Gefter is suspect...When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms,

If you don't differentiate between saying something is possible or probable based on circumstantial evidence, and saying that it is established fact based on that same evidence, then there is no difference.

79 posted on 02/28/2009 1:17:59 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: tacticalogic; metmom
If you don't differentiate between saying something is possible or probable based on circumstantial evidence, and saying that it is established fact based on that same evidence, then there is no difference.

Well, then talk to those who don't differentiate. Again, my statement was that metmom was appropriately turning the question on Gefter. And the only one who could answer the appropriateness of wondering about metmom's motives was you.

81 posted on 02/28/2009 1:41:07 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson