Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (PennyBright @ June 10 2007,10:52)|
Posted: April 02 2007,14:59
(That’s an interesting observation, Stephen. But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:
pathetic, moron, ass-whopping, crotch, homos, stupid, IDiot, cunt, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder if this doesn't tell us something interesting about the way creationists "read" debates like this one.
FtK seems to have no concern at all for the content of the papers she has supposedly read - only for the character of that writing vs the character of the discussion here. IE, what her emotive response to it is.
Do you think maybe that's *really* the only difference she can tell between this kind of debate and a formal scientific paper? That kind of serious category error would certainly explain why so many creationists fall for the dreck that they do.
It would make sense -- that which feels good to read (makes the creationist feel smart, right, confirmed, etc) would be acceptable, while that which feels bad (makes the creationist feel ill-educated, insulted, uncomfortable, etc) would be rejected. And writings with little to no emotive power - such as most scientific papers -- would be glossed over, as FtK is doing here. Lacking content the creationist reader knows how to process, they would simply be ignored.
Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.