Reflectorites
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:13:45 -0500, Susan Cogan wrote:
[...]
>BV>. . . Stephen doesn't question anyone's motives, intelligence, honesty or
>>sincerely. He does question people's philosophy.
SB>Stephen is a religionist. He is usually only able to question things
>that , in his perception, don't support his religion.
This is self-evidently false, because as Susan herself has pointed out, there
are those with the same Christian "religion" as me who accept evolution.
Susan herself posted something from Cliff Hamrick an evolutionist and
an anti-IDist, pointing out he was "a Christian:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:24:25 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>Below is an article that I found on another list by a biologist at Baylor
>University. For Bertvan's edification, the author not only defines the word
>"propaganda" but also "theory." Stephen should note that the author is a
>Christian.
>
>-----------------------
>Cliff Hamrick <cliff_hamrick@BAYLOR.EDU> April 11, 2000
>10:52:49 AM EDT
>reiterations@META-LIST.ORG
>
>Dr. Dembski's last submission to Metaviews has sparked in me the need to
>respond to all the Creationist propaganda that I have been reading. First,
>let me say that I do not use the words 'Creationist propaganda' lightly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in supporting ID, I deliberately put aside all the "religion" questions
and just look at the *scientific* evidence for evolution and for design.
As I have said before, I would have no problem reconciling my "religion"
to evolution (in fact I did so for about 15 years). The reason I started
questioning evolution was the way the evolutionists argued their case on
Fidonet using abuse and ridicule. Then when I then looked into it further I
found the reason why they preferred ridicule and abuse, rather than simply
relying on scientific answers. Behind their intimidatory rhetoric was a
closet full of scientific and philosophical skeletons!
SB>Agnostics question everything. Motives, intelligence, honest and
>sincerity are not sacred cows, above or outside what can be >questioned.
Susan better have a talk with Chris. He has just said he rejects Christianity
and Creationism as not even "logically possible".
That makes for him some form of evolution *un*-"question"-able!
In fact forget about Chris. Susan says she "question[s] everything". Does
she "question" the fact of evolution *itself* (as opposed to any particular
version of it).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The theory of species selection, growing out of that of punctuated
equilibria, is a stimulating idea which may well explain some single
dimensions of quantitative change in macroevolution. I would be very
surprised if it could be used to explain the sort of complex
multidimensional adaptation that I find interesting, the 'Paley's watch', or
'Organs of extreme Perfection and complication', kind of adaptation that
seems to demand a shaping agent at least as powerful as a deity."
(Dawkins R., "The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene",
[1982], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1983, p.108)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 06:23:14 EDT