Lies, damned lies and op-ed pieces by religious people

by Rudd-O published 2006/09/16 15:56:00 GMT+0, last modified 2013-06-26T03:24:28+00:00

I just read a statement in Crosswalk I had to reply to. And I did. Both to the author's inbox and in my blog:

Sorry to intrude, but I have to point out a logical fallacy in your argument. I'm quoting verbatim from the article:

Previously, Ohio's public school science guidelines said that students should be free to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The decision by the State Board of Education effectively eliminates that freedom. This means that science teachers and students are no longer authorized to discuss scientific evidence that questions the claims of Darwin's theory.

The fact that explicit verbiage to describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory was removed from the guidelines in question does not mean that it's automatically forbidden.

Much in the same way as me saying that a girl is "not pretty" doesn't automatically mean I'm calling her ugly (she might very well just be average). Or (more accurately) me not saying that a girl "is pretty" doesn't render her ugly.

But I'm positive you already knew about this logical fallacy (others may have informed you in due time) and you're probably aware that you're using it as a leverage point for your opinions stated in the article.

Beware. We thinkers are watching you guys. Some of us aren't as dumb as we may pretend to be.