From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 10:35:46 EST
Every scientist who has ever published a paper that is critical to
other's work or is presenting a new idea knows full well that the
writing of the paper is done as if one were presenting a brief before
the US Superior Court. My daughter, who is not a physician, is a
practicing lawyer but knows enough about medicine to properly depose
physicians. I think this criticism of PJ is unwarranted. PJ has clearly
brought to the fore the philosophical assumptions involved in
evolutionary theory that go beyond science. I believe that is proper
philosophy of science, if you like. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Armstrong [mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:51 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
Of course PJ is a Professor or Law, not a scientist. His
arguments flow from a specific agenda and seem more those of the
courtroom, using facts in selective ways in order to create doubt. I
think that is evident in what he calls his "Wedge strategy". He
describes his agenda pretty well at
http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_wedgeprogress041601.htm
I presume this is discussed as well in his recent book "Wedge of
Truth".
Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
Jim Armstrong wrote:
From PJ's own web site it looks like the latest
on the subject is 1995
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/johnson/
Even more disturbing is that PJ seems to know Kenneth
Miller
fairly well as he debated him in 1996. Why he would
basically
call him something just short of a seditionist is beyond
me.
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/index.html).
[PJs comments on Ken were the original reason for this
post.]
by Grace along indeed, we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 10:35:59 EST