Arguments vs. Evidence in the Creation Debate

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Mercer

Arguments are not necessarily empty, misleading rhetoric.

When did I say or imply that they were?

You implied so here:

@Mercer

I mean it as lay terminology, analogous to a legal proceeding. Scientists focus on the evidence, not rhetoric. ID proponents and creationists do not engage with the evidence, pretending that hearsay is just as good; hence their emphasis on argument over evidence as seen here.

@Mercer

I’m sorry you’re confused, but I stand by it. That’s how strong the evidence is.

By your own admission, arguments and evidence cannot be compared. One is a subset of another. It is nonsensical to say that “there is so much evidence that there is no need to make an argument to prove X”. Given that each piece of evidence E is part of an argument A (that presumably proves X), the statement is self-contradictory.

If your point is that both sides need to agree on the data before arguing for their respective positions, then I support you there. In contrast, “evidence” is a term with non-neutral connotations that begs the question against one’s own side, because as you said, it is always a component of an argument for something. Thus, it’s not always productive to deploy it in a contentious debate like this.

@Mercer

I don’t see how you can do that if you don’t actively refute frankly dishonest equivocations between rhetoric and evidence.

I’m talking about the context of the thread: What Are Your Favorite Arguments For Evolution?. I’m not talking about what Behe said. Or are you accusing @J.E.S of being dishonest?