On Fri, 17 Nov 1995 13:48:33 -0600 you wrote:
>*** On Writing style, Magic, and Conspiracy Theories ***
>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.
[..]
>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.
I for one appreciate Walter's direct style and even more the content
of his posts. I have discovered that no matter how hard I try to be
polite, evolutionists do get offended. I have had personal messages
*from Christians* on this Reflector accusing me of lack of integrity
and demanding that I stop making certain anti-evolutionary
arguments, etc.
I find the same thing on the Australian Creation versus Evolution
fidonet echo, and it was what really got me interested in the debate.
I expected an Olympian thick-skinedness from scientific types who
would effortlessly dispose of us creationist rednecks. Instead I
found an amazing sensitivity and a quick descent into personalities.
This confirmed to me that evolution is an illusion, well before I read
Walter's book. I believe that Walter is spot-on and one day his book
will be regarded as a classic. I count it a unique privilege that I
have access to his thoughts via this medium.
I would encourage Walter to "fight the good fight" (1Tim 6:12; 2Tim
4:7) (someone should have told St Paul that this is bad form! :-)),
and not to be put off my the squeals of protest, as he strips away
the layers of evolutionary illusion.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------