Re: Scientific American
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Sat, 31 Jul 1999 09:50:31 -0400
John M. Lynch wrote:
>
> Bert M. wrote ...
>
> >Eugene C. Scott does a hatchet job on Phillip Johnson using a review
> of
>
> Thats Eugenie Scott -
>
> > For example, he claims that modern ID
>
> Eugenie's a she.
>
> Thirdly, even accepting PEJ asked to reply to this piece and "SA will
> not let Johnson respond", one should remember that journals
> traditionally do not allow lengthy responses to reviews of this nature
> by authors, never mind other parties. PEJ is, of course, free to write
> a letter to the letters section of SA, or for that matter an essay for
> First Things bemoaning the snow job.
>
> Lastly, Pennock's book is quite good and is written with a
> philosophical flair sadly missing by many ID components.
>
> -jml
>
> ***************
I greatly support PEJ but not completely and thank you for telling me
that he is a she.
My point still stands that provoking guilt by association really belies
a lack of basis for the counterattack and even though I greatly support
ID there is a counter attack to be faced it is just not the label "well,
this is just God in disguise."
Bert M