"Hi Cobra: I want to start out by saying that I agree with both you and Percy concerning the fact that attacking an individual or their credentials is not a valid argument. I do, however, feel constrained to point out that when an individual or his/her credentials are used as a basis (or one of the bases) for judging the validity of a claim made by that individual, then the credentials and/or individual motivations are fair game. An example would be if someone were to say, "Dr. Jonathan Wells, a PhD biologist, states..." (or words to that effect)."
I understand and agree with you. However, I'd like to point out that Creationists often brag about their credentials in order to dispel the myth that there are no credentialed scientists who do not follow the evolution world view.
"I'm not sure I agree with this statement - at least as written. It certainly makes sense to me that an evolutionary biologist devoting his/her life to studying evolution would have an interest in promoting the science. I'm not sure how that equates to "preconceived notion". They are certainly willing to argue about the details of evolution - often passionately - but to conclude that there is some kind of bias that would preclude them from considering actual evidence is stretching it, don't you think?"
All I was referring to was the idea that it would be difficult for a normal person to begin studying the issue without a preconcieved notion. Generally, I person either starts out with the idea that "evolution is true" or "evolution is false". They may be very prepared to have their views changed, but beginning scientific study without a preconcieved notion in an issue with such emotional impact as evolution is surely not likely.
™ Version 4.2
