Glenn continued:
-------------
Now If you are saying that Johnson is a deceitful writer, I would be
disappointed in Johnson, (not you for saying this)
---------------
I said nothing of the kind. I did not try to imply such a thing. If
someone infers that from what I write, I apologize for sloppy prose.
I wrote previously,
"As often happens, in your reply you open up other issues, tangential to
the only one I raised."
Glenn replied:
--------------------------------
Yes I do this because knowledge is a holistic thing. Each part of
knowledge affects every other part. To pretend that we can discuss one
area
without looking at the implications it has for other areas of knowledge
is
to put our heads in the sand.
--------------------
LISTSERV posts are sloppy enough, by their very nature, that this
practice (opening tangential issues) leads to no resolution of the claims
and questions asked. Of course knowledge is "holistic" But concentration
on narrow questions is essential if we are ever to understand one
another. George Murphy and Bill Hamilton, and Loren Haarsma (usually) are
very good at this, BTW. (IMHO of course).
Glenn continued, quoting me quoting Glenn < G >:
-------------------------
>You wrote:
>----------------------------
>However, here is what I found in my copy of Darwin on Trial:
>
>"By what Darwinian process did useful hind limbs wither away to
vestigial
>proportions, and at what stage in the transformation from rodent to sea
>monster did this occur? Did rodent forelimbs transform themselves by
>gradual adaptive stages into whale flippers? We hear nothing of the
>difficulties because to Darwinists unsolvable problems are not
>important."
>~ Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downer's Grove:
>Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 87
>-----------------------------
>There is no way under God's blue skies that I can read into that piece
>(of somewhat lawyerly prose) that Johnson "believes whales came from
>rodents."
So you don't beleive that Johnson writes what he believes to be true?
This
means that he writes what he knows to be false! Johnson is looking
really
bad.
-----------------------------------
I do not believe that he above quotation says that PJ believes any such
thing. But this is going over old ground again.
Finally, Glenn concludes:
--------------------------
OK, I will cut the sarcasm now that I have probably made you mad at me. I
know you really hate irony or sarcasm on the internet To defend Johnson
in
the manner you are defending him seems to make Johnson look worse than he
actually does. I think he is ignorant of science and doesnt' care to
correct himself. Your defence of him makes him look like a sophist, a
deceitful individual or a mindless blabberer. That is truly a poor
defence
of someone you like. Please never defend me in this way. :-)
----------------
1. Not mad at you
2. Not defending PJ
3. Simply pointing out that your claim is without merit.
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.