Dear Mr Redweld,
As a rhetorical mercenary who has recently suggested in a comment thread that he is not political, I wonder if you could comment on this comment that I read at reason.com --
How does Creationism conflict with biology, exactly?
When does Evolution factor into how organic chemistry work? Or medicine? It doesn't have any factor at all.
It's just an explanation of why we exist in the first place, as opposed to the universe just happening to appear due to random chance somehow...
Meanwhile AGW threatens to cripple the economy of the world, if believers have their way.
I do not know your views on Creationism, religion, or AGW. I am simply asking you to tell me whether this comment is soundly reasoned, in your view.
The first sentence is a good question in the context of the thread above it, where most of the comments attack Creationism from a conclusive basis where they assume that Creationism is not science. The field of science literally is the field of knowledge. The academic discipline is a bit narrower and generally tends toward the subjects of biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. Does Creationism belong among those 4 sub-disciplines? The question posed examines the conclusion's viability. If it's viable then nothing is lost and more explanation is gained. If it's not viable we've gained both the explanation and the more well-reasoned elimination of the concept from the academic world of science. It's a fair question. A person whose stance is well-grounded should feel no threat in having to answer it.
The second sentence, or rather pair of rhetorical questions and then a conclusion, really only requires examining the conclusion. Is it true? I'm not an expert on evolution, but I seem to recall having evolutionary thoughts related to organic chemistry when studying comparative anatomy and physiology. Comparative anatomy and physiology is a component of undergraduate biology and medicine studies alike, and also is found in some areas of M.S. and Ph.D. level studies in biology.
The third sentence seems in a mindless read to be a fair statement, but if you're paying attention you may notice it poses a false dichotomy through the phrase "as opposed to," which limits the reader's examination to only two options when there others.
The last sentence is the most interesting of all. Even if we grant the accuser's conclusion that AGW poses a global economic threat "if believers have their way," doesn't the global economy depend on a healthy oikos? And therefore shouldn't preserving the oikos be primary, else there is no way to build a system of commerce and exchange on it? It seems the accuser doesn't understand things deeper than the man-made commercial level, and should perhaps inform himself/herself on matters of biology.
Your humble correspondent,