RE: Johnson on Bible Answer Man

From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 16:55:35 EST

  • Next message: Dawsonzhu@aol.com: "Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man"

    >>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>>

    My criticism of PJ concerns his unwarranted, insulting and remarkably
    uncivil attack on Miller. I do not fault him for being a lawyer, nor for
    espousing his own philosophies (although I think them sorely misguided).

    There are others who criticize unwarranted metaphysical darwinian
    assumptions better than PJ, of course. Zygon (the magazine) is a good
    source.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    >From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
    >To: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>, <asa@calvin.edu>
    >Subject: RE: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
    >Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:35:46 -0500
    >
    >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
    >
    >

    _________________________________________________________________
    The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 16:56:07 EST