Steve Anonsen wrote a thoughtful post. Let me first handle the smaller
stuff, before I get to what, I think, is bothering Steve and perhaps others.
Loren Haarsma wrote:
>Ice cream comes in more than two flavors (chocolate or vanilla), and
>ideas come in more than two types ("testable" or "structureless
>smorgasbord").
I responded:
>Loren's rhetoric is getting out of hand. I didn't say ideas came in only
>two types.
I indicated that Loren's "ice cream" analogy and dualism was inaccurate, his
rhetoric was getting the better of him. I didn't complain that his rhetoric
was mean-spirited (it wasn't), I merely pointed out it was off the mark and
thus ineffective.
Frankly, I enormously enjoy Loren's posts. A straight-shooter. He's always
engaging and thoughtful. And I have told him so publicly.
******
I think Steve Anonsen's deeper concern is about style of argumentation. He
gave many examples from my previous post, and they were all mild compared
to, say, the daily workings of Congress. (Perhaps that example is not too
inspiring. Have you seen 'em lately! Whew!)
The origins debate is inherently, and unavoidably, combative. At its most
gentile it is like a boxing match (and in the talk.origins crowd it's more
like an anything-goes street fight.) The boxing analogy is dynamic and, I
think, a more accurate description than a static 'line of demarcation'
between science and non-science. Anyone entering the origins debate should
be prepared for serious conflict.
My style is compact and direct (and less formal here than in my book), as I
am mindful of the reader's limited time. Typical reflector posts are overly
long and prissy. They tend to use long-winded windups like "I think you
might be mindful to remember that ..." Which is okay in a personal letter,
but at length it puts other readers to sleep. Long-winded posts also tend
to have errors, evasions, and obfuscations.
An adversarial dialog (as in a court room) best gets the truth to emerge,
where we can see it. *For that reason* I debate as though my opponent IS an
opponent, and just like lawyers in court it doesn't much matter what their
inner personal feelings are about the issues. It matters a lot that we get
the issues out on the table. I value clarity highly, and believe it is
worth the price of fighting for.
In any issue there are thousands of ambiguities, confusions, and side-issues
that can be raised, (and some opponents revel in that). There is a knack to
hacking through to the central issues RAPIDLY. One will never answer every
side-issue in any small number of posts. So I must pick a few issues, and
go for maximal clarity, in the shortest time. I can't fight all fights, and
can't give equal importance to all matters.
Let me give a feeling for this. Describe to someone else how to do a magic
trick or stage illusion without ever mentioning the magician or apprentices
or their actions. You will be tongue-tied in long awkward sentences known
as passive construction. It will be dull, drawn out, and will put people to
sleep. Try it!!!
I am in the unique position (unlike other's on this reflector) of having to
dismantle long-held, deeply ingrained evolutionary illusions. There are
many, and I can't dilly-dally. I discovered that to communicate these clear
and fast, I must use active construction, I must mention the magician and
his actions -- and that offends some people, because they take it personal.
Frankly, I think that's part of human nature (me included). Being
personally offended is the last refuge against what we don't like, when all
other objections fail.
But I don't slow down for that, I just stick to the central issues -- how
evolutionary illusions are constructed and maintained. Before long it
inevitably happens, evolutionists complain that I am accusing them of
conspiracy and of intentionally misleading others. When that is their
focus, then I know they're losing it.
Evolutionary illusions are interesting and fundamental. The "conspiracy"
issue is secondary, and less important, so I handle it last. I do NOT think
evolutionary illusions result from willful misconduct or intentional
conspiracy. But they aren't accidental either. They are intricately
constructed, and they didn't construct themselves -- evolutionists created
them, and evolutionists must (someday) explain how those came to be. As
I've said before, I think the illusions result from a complex sociology of
science which we are ALL subject to. I think there will be tough lessons
for ALL of us on this score.
I meet evolutionists on their turf, on their terms, and without religious
arguments. They claim they've always wanted that from creationists. This
argumentation style is a refreshing change for creationists, and long
overdue. And while it is not for everyone, it is essential that
creationists undertake the long painful process.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128