> Huxter:
> >And Steve seems to be working in the self-centered assumption that posting
>an
>>article or a snippet of an article/book by a Moonie that uses a non-existent
>>affiliation to appear more credible is somehow asking questions or worse -
>>providing 'evidence' that 'Darwinism' is in error.
>>Again, poor Berton must be flabbergasted!
>
>Bertvan:
>Huxter's version of an "in depth" discussion of Icons of Evolution seems to
>be attacking the religion and credentials of the author.
Huxter has made it abundantly clear that Wells and/or the Discovery
Institute is dishonest about Wells's credentials. Therefore it calls
into question the honesty of his book. You have stated on many
occasions that the dishonesty of creationists does not bother you and
that it's somehow tacky or bad form to call attention to it. That's
you. If a major evolutionist were discovered to be lying or dishonest
about their academic credentials, I would be angry, humiliated and
feeling betrayed. I'd be howling for their blood. That's me.
Huxter didn't attack Wells's religion. Creationists usually conceal
his religion because they know it would offend their major audience.
Huxter merely pointed out Wells's religion.
>I read this list
>mainly for the articles, quotes and links (and snippets), most of which are
>provided by Stephen. Actually, I amused by people with quite limited
>credentials who speak with such authority on subjects about which they know
>only what they have been told by the "experts". Or when they denounce Ph.Ds
>with published articles and books as "idiots". Steven doesn't yet have a
>degree, but he obviously reads more than most of us on the subject of biology
>and evolution. We can disagree with the articles Stephen quotes, but we
>would all choose publication as a way of presenting our opinions if possible,
>rather than this discussion group.
I know that several evolutionists on this list *do* publish, actual
research and perhaps opinion, though I know you can't tell the
difference. This is a discussion group (I believe I've mentioned this
before) it exists for the sake of discussion. There are
announcement-only lists where you can state your opinions without
contradiction. There are also creationist-only lists where you can do
the same thing.
I feel competent to read and understand most evolutionary concepts. I
know you don't feel that way about yourself (or you at least say you
don't). On one of those creationist-only lists you won't have to
worry about it one way or the other.
>First you have to find someone willing to discuss with you. I enjoy
>discussions with people with whom I disagree, but whose intelligence and
>tolerance I respect. However, anyone whose posts have consist mainly of name
>calling might have trouble finding participants for "discussions". I'm sure
>everyone is able judge Stepehn's supposed "character attacks" as compared to
>those of the average Darwin defender.
I'm curious: If evolutionists and IDists were equally polite, how
would you chose which one to believe in?
Susan
-- ----------I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 12:54:21 EST