>But even now, isn't there some way RTB could just
>back off, or shove it aside if it they are so concerned
>about losing face or whatever it is that they seem to
>be stuck on. Why can't people just say sometimes,
>"I mucked it up" and be done with it? It's not
>like it's a sin to get an interpretation messed up.
As many times as I have been forced to retract and alter my views (on this
and other lists) I find it much easier now. (Everyone has places where they
are and will continue to be wrong because they don't see the evidence as
convincing.) But one should always strive to change in the face of new data.
That being said, I have a quotation from Ross which illustrates the problem
he has with admitting error--he thinks, erroneously, that it loses him
credibility. He wrote:
"A scientific misstatement in the science news article 'Earth
Design Update: Sulfur in the Core' (v 12:2, 1998, pp 4-5)
must be corrected, and I hope you will forgive me for the
confusion and loss of credibility it caused." ~ Hugh Ross,
"Repairs," Facts & Faith, 12(1998):3, p. 7
Nothing could be further from the truth. Credibility is enhanced when one
admits an error. Why? Because people then know that you will tell them the
truth regardless of how painful that truth is to your position!
Admit a few mistakes, Hugh, it makes you, like the rest of us--HUMAN!
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 24 2002 - 13:38:46 EST