In a message dated 10/30/2000 12:06:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
<< 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 nonexistent
>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. I read this list
mainly for the articles, quotes and links (and snippets), most of which are
provided by Stephen.
===========================================
I am attacking neither, merely pointing out the obvious. I cannot have an in
depth discussion of Wells book (and neither can Steven) since I have not read
it. Of course, I did not post a gushing review of it, either.
===========================================
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".
===================================
Projecting?
===================================
Or when they denounce Ph.Ds with published articles and books as "idiots".
=====================================
Such as?
=====================================
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.
Huxter:
>As far as your 'liking' to post articles and snippets and discussing them,
I
>see that you like posting them much more than discussing them.
>And again, more of your character attacks. Are you reading this Bertvan?
>I do think that if someone - regardless of their 'credentials' -
>brings up a topic, they should be able to discuss it or at least say at the
>outset that they cannot. That is not only common courtesy, but common
sense.
>If you consider that an attempt at intimidation, then I suggest that you
>have are operating under an interesting definition of intimidation.
Bertvan:
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".
======================================
You mean like DNAunion? I guess Steve's insults of Susan and so on just
slipped under your radar...
======================================
I'm sure everyone is able judge Stepehn's supposed "character attacks" as
compared to those of the average Darwin defender.
==========================================
Yes, I'm sure they are. Here we see one of the more annoying
anti-evolutionist tactics - it is not necessarily the message, but the way it
was delivered. It is a terrible thing if an evolutionist questions the
motivations of a creationist, but when Steven tells me I lack the *attitude*
of a 'true scientist', it is just a simple statement; no harm no foul. I
frankly do not care what Steve Jones thinks about me or anything or anyone
else. These internet discussion fora are hardly the place - or the way -
science is done.
==========================================
Huxter:
>Just out of curiosity - do you consider Wells to be a *true* scientist?
Bertvan:
How do we define a "true scientist? Only those who defend Darwinism? Wells
has some credentials and a published book, in which he offers some
interesting information. We are all free to agree or reject it. "Common
courtesy" would suggest his religion, or lack of religion, is immaterial.
Bertvan
=====================================
I did not say that at all - I was asking Steven for his criteria. And again
- what is 'Darwinism'? Common sense dictates that if one's religion is the
expressed reason one undertook a course of action, then it certainly is NOT
immaterial. Wells expressly and explicitly stated that the reason he went
for his doctorate was to "destroy Darwinism." It appears that his actual
research didn't do the trick, so he now must resort to attacking long-dead
evolutionists and nit-picking to achieve his lofty, religion-inspired goal.
I did not, nor did I anyone else I know, undertake the rigors of earning
a Ph.D. for the sole purpose of "destroying ID" or "destroying creationism."
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 13:15:17 EST