As I have said, I think it is foolish of "Conservatives" to cite religious sources as "proof" of anything outside of their own faith.
I have asked no such thing. I have merely pointed out that if a "Conservative" makes any criticism of science people automatically assume they are "attacking" science, as you just have. Thanks for once again proving my point.
PLC was parroting a "journalist" who was making fun of "Conservatives" with his post... It's a propaganda technique known as "Name Calling" which was executed with an "Appeal to Ridicule" fallacy.
Just because Group X claims that Group Y believes Z doesn't make it so... And when X and Y are competitors, Z is probably false or misleading.
PLC failed to offer any evidence to back his assertion that "Conservatives" had to reject GTR in order to retain their "credentials". Both he and the "journalist" purposefully left out what the "Conservatives" were referencing in relation to a "Liberal plot" regarding GTR to create the Appeal to Ridicule:
Not including the actual above quote but only offering the out of context footnote making reference to this quote made the quote below sound ridiculous...
The propaganda technique was successful. The proof of that can be found in you stating the following:
And so you were left with the impression that it was the "Conservatives" who were "conflating" the two subjects without justification...
Dr. Goebbels would be proud.
You have already admitted that there are scientists who acknowledge the shortcomings of GTR... Should that preclude non-scientists from pointing out the same thing?
Your claim was: "More people believe X to be true than to be false, therefore X is most likely true." That is a logical fallacy. Whether you replace X with God or GTR does not matter, the statement is a logical fallacy.
I was speaking to their criticism of GTR, the topic at hand, not their interest in replacing evolution with creationism.
Dealing specifically with the linked section of the "article", the "Conservatives" were pointing out that GTR has flaws (which by itself should not be a controversial statement). Offering such criticism of GTR does not require them to offer a substitute theory of their own (although I'm sure they have one).
