Easy, lad. I agree with Dennis Durst...keep this on the high road. A little
rhetorical fun (and that's what my message was, in keeping with the tone of
YOUR first message) is fine. Don't take it so personally! I love Canada. I've
been there once.
When I wrote:
JB<<Yeah, like you expect them to be sitting around the faculty lounge
singing, "Darwinists are we! Born to be free! Just like the fish in the sea!"
JUST so you could overhear them...>>
This was to be funny (perhaps I failed!) Didn't you ever see "Bananas"?
And then you accuse me of slander? Don't you think that term is a bit loaded?
Anyway, I'll reel in the fun on this message to get back to the issues. Look,
you thought the term "Darwinism" to be some sort of sham term made up by the
"other side." It's not. You now use the old "primary literature" argument
again, but that's irrelevant. The debate is being played out in the public
arena, in the "secondary" literature if you will. So people like Dawkins use
the term without hesitation. And remember, that was the original context. I
had mentioned the habit of critics of popular literature, like Behe's book,
labelling people "creationists" at the drop of a pen. You turned it around and
claimed the same was being done by creationists. You claimed the creationist
camp used "Darwinism" all the time, but I quoted Gish to show you otherwise.
Yet you couldn't resist:
<<Yep, still reading that high powered stuff, eh? How about citing Morris
too? And didn't you forget Hal Lindsey?>>
I guess this ISN'T slander, huh? Denis, c'mon. That wasn't my point, and you
know it. I have NEVER cited Gish authoritatively on this reflector, or
anywhere else. This was just to show you that the creationist literature,
which YOU brought up, doesn't support what you say about it.
Now, the following is a complete side issue, but one of my pet peeves (like
Paul Nelson's's insistence on the 's to show possession). Denis wrote:
<< Most know little about Charles Darwin and most could care less.>>
This was my point: The term "could care less" is sloppy, conveying precisely
the OPPOSITE of what is intended. The correct phrase, of course, is "couldn't
care less" (and I assume many of you couldn't care less that this drives me
crazy). But every now and then, a little blow for the King's English is in
order.
Denis, you can put your priestly robes back on, and I'll get back into my
briefs.
Still your friend and occasional thorn,
Jim