Reflectorites
On Mon, 29 May 2000 01:06:59 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>I am pleased that I have been able to brighten up Richard's day! Richard's
>>reply brightened up *my* day, for this reason:
>>
>>"People who resort to ridicule are often covering up something."
>>(Johnson P.E., "A Reply to My Critics," in "Evolution as Dogma: The
>>Establishment of Naturalism," 1990, p34.
>>http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma3.htm).
[...]
RW>Well, if Phillip Johnson said it, it *must* be true!
It doesn't matter *who* said it. The fact is that if uncommitted members
of the general public see Darwinists responding with ridicule, they will
probably assume that the Darwinists are trying to hide something.
The public these days is used to that type of behaviour from
politicians and corporate executives who are trying to hide
something, and so they will probably assume that the Darwinists
are acting the same way for the same reason.
The Darwinists' best chance would be to be (or at least appear)
utterly transparent, honest and humble, courteous, patient and kind
to those who disagree with them, and then some people might just
believe them.
But it is one of the problems of power-elites that it attracts the sort
of people who find it difficult to be (or at least appear to be)
utterly transparent, honest and humble, courteous, patient and kind
to those who disagree with them!
RW> (Oops... there I go
>again... I wonder what I'm covering up this time?)
[...]
Maybe Richard really isn't covering anything up. But he *appears*
to be trying to hide something behind his ridicule, and that is what
count in my (and I am sure the public's) perception.
BTW I meant to ask what exactly was wrong with my assumption:
"That Leishman does not get Dembski's name right, only adds to its
genuineness as a non-partisan opinion (I had never heard of him
before this)."
Does Richard really believe that a journalist (whose stock-in-trade
is words), could be a member of the ID movement and yet repeatedly
spell Dembski's name "Dembsky"?
If not, then what *was* Richard's point when he wrote in reply to
my assumption above:
"Thanks, Stephen. You gave me the best laugh I've had all day. (I
suppose that doesn't say much for my day so far!)"?
If this is not simply ridicule, then Richard must have had some
rational argument in mind against my assumption.
If that were the case, I would be interested in knowing what it
was.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 29 2000 - 18:35:37 EDT