Crownboy said:
: I know more than enough than to simply take a creationist at his word.
Very good!
: Besides, what you accuse me of is exactly what you do, except you do it with evolution. (If you are a scientist who does original research, I stand corrected, and even then much of your knowlegde can be credited to others). All most of us do is rely on the work of others,
This is a horrible argument. Hardly anyone ever does original research. Almost everything you know comes from what people tell you through any number of communication methods. When I referred to "research", therefore, I could not have meant original research, but research in various sources that give various sides of issues, and most important, present data that supports the conclusions. And of course, by "data" I mean fairly complete data, not the sort of highly selected stuff that is typical of what you find in Watchtower or creationist literature. A good selection of critical material is good, too, because it gives you a picture of what the other side is saying. When you compare what each side says with what each side claims the other says, it's pretty easy to see which side of the evolution/creation debate tends to present the facts fairly and to represent the other fairly. Based on this, it is painfully evident that creationists largely tend to be dishonest, and normal scientists tend to be much more honest. There are exceptions, but the exceptions do not make the rule.
: so the real issue is whether I raised a valid issue or not.
Yes it is, and you didn't. You presented hardly any facts, and certainly no clear illustrations or references. A vague reference to some "encyclopedia CDROM" does no one any good. And even in this response of yours, you failed to answer most of the questions and challenges I raised.
: perhaps you give some science writers too much benefit of the doubt.
Ok, then you go right ahead and find some science writers who you think are deliberately dishonest. Prove your contention by quoting them and giving full references, and then cite material that proves that they are dishonest.
Do keep in mind that finding one or two here and there only proves my contention that some writers might be dishonest, and that some writers are simply ignorant or tend to oversimplify. For your overall implication to be valid -- that science as a whole is tainted by the ignorance or dishonesty of a few -- you'll have to do a lot more than that.
: I stated in one of my post that I first learned of this problem from a scientific writing (can't remember the name), and yet I still see it repeated in textbooks& encyclopedias.
References, please.
: Many people still believe many of these things, so I think it is up to the scientific community to make sure that things are being represented correctly (in fact, that's stated in the Talk Origins article you quoted).
You obviously think that "the scientific community" is some sort of monolithic police state ruled by some entity that can dictate the conduct of each member. I've got news for you -- it doesn't work like that. You're confusing a tightly controlled body of religious doctrine dictated by a small group of leaders with a loosely organized body of knowledge that is largely determined by consensus of expert scientists who check each other and sometimes disagree.
I will get hold of MS Encarta and see what it says.
The link you gave does not demonstrate your point. Your explanation is quite garbled, and it does not accurately reflect what is said in the link.
I agree that false information should not be disseminated, but you have not made an intelligible argument about exactly who you think in the scientific community is doing that, and who should be responsible for correcting it. Your arguments are pretty much the same as the vague, fuzzy pseudo-arguments that many creationists put out.
AlanF
