I had written (21 May 2002 18:55:08 +0200):
>>>>Of course, all this has nothing to do with the idea that there can be
>>>>only one active cyt.c sequence. I wonder where you get that idea from.
>>>>Do you know of anyone ignorant enough to hold it?
In response, Glenn Morton wrote:
> >> Yeah, lots of anti-evolutinists are that ignorant. Ignorant is
> >> your word so I will use it.
>
> >I have not checked any of the publications you cite, in order to see
> >what they write. But assuming your reading is correct, I should not have
> >used this strong term.
> >I apologize to all those concerned for using the word "ignorant".
>
> Now, why do you apologize for characterizing things correctly? It was your
> word not mine, but I do think it was correct. I am ignorant of many things
> in this world. Being ignorant is not a shame in any way shape or form. What
> is the shame is when people refuse to look at the areas they are ignorant in
> or write in areas they haven't fully thought out. All those authors were
> and are saying in various ways what you say shouldn't be said. Yet now you
> want to draw back from your assessment of that knowledge. Unless and until
> christians call their brothers and sisters to account for their silly
> statements in the area of apologetics, we will NEVER have an apologetic
> worth having. If it was ignorant before you found out who was saying it, why
> isn't it ignorant after?
I agree that we should talk openly among brothers and sisters. But
initially, I was applying the term "ignorant" very specifically to an
idea, namely the "idea that there can be only one active cyt.c
sequence". So I was surprised that you extended it to apply to persons
generally, namely to "lots of anti-evolutinists", including many authors
I respect. That told me I had perhaps not been carefully enough in
specifying exactly what I meant with this term. So I felt the need to
apologize to the following authors, whom I would never have dreamt of
targeting with my criticism.
> >I certainly know the following authors are NOT ignorant at all: Charles
> >Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, Percival Davis, Dean H. Kenyon,
> >Russell Maatman. I don't know and have not read Robert Gange. I should
> >like to check what they all actually wrote. I might get around to it
> >later.
>
> Being ignorant isn't the same as being stupid. Ignorant is merely the lack
> of knowledge. And when we make mistakes from lack of knowledge, even if we
> are knowledgeable in other areas, we are still ignorant. I agree that these
> men are very smart. But that doesn't make their arguments safe from
> presuppositions or poorly thought out concepts.
> ... [snip]
> glenn
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 12:33:22 EDT