Evolutionists are intellectual snobs

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Further Reading 7 Related claims 8 See Also 9 Acknowledgments

[edit] Claim

Anti-creationist complaints are a form of snobbery. There are many more important traits to judge people on than whether they believe in evolution.

[edit] Source

• Derbyshire, John, 2003 (Apr. 22). Pseudoscience vs. Snobbery: A Doonesbury lesson. National Review Online [1]

[edit] Responses

1. The accusation of "intellectual snobbery" is definitely valid for some people who accept the theory of evolution; as well, it's definitely not valid for others.
2. Suppose it really were true that 100% of the people who accept evolution are indeed intellectual snobs. What difference would it make to the question of whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory? Whether 'evolutionists' are snobs or not, the theory of evolution is still the best available explanation for a remarkably large quantity of evidence, and the attempt to discredit evolution by pointing out a real or imagined failing of its proponents is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.
3. While the facts of evolution are independent of the backgrounds of its proponents or opponents, there is the pragmatic issue that persuasion of school boards and other agencies to do the right thing can be affected by the presence or appearance of "snobbery". The majority of the public can be intimidated by those with PhD's or who work in research labs, so it can be helpful to avoid this "snobbery" label, whether true or not.
4. Compare with: "Creationist complaints are a form of snobbery. There are many more important traits to judge people on than whether they believe in evolution."
5. This claim is painfully ironic, given as how many Creationists have a literal "Holier than thou" attitude, claiming that all "evolutionists" are evil atheists who are hellbound sinners utterly beyond God's salvation simply because they disagree with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
6. add more responses

[edit] Fallacies contained in this claim

• Abusive Ad Hominem (pretty obvious)

[edit] External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [2]
• CreationWiki's comments [3]

[edit] Further Reading

• Sonnert, Gerhard, 2002. Ivory Bridges: Connecting Science and Society, MIT Press.

[edit] Related claims

• Creationism, being Bible-based, is good

[edit] See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

[edit] Acknowledgments

• Cubist