Hi Peter,
You wrote of my statement that if something was ignorant before you found
out who was holding that view then it should also be ignorant afterwards:
>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.
You asked me who was ignorant enough to hold to a single sequence view when
you wrote On May 21, 8:55 am:
>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?
Just because they are on your side and you respect them doesn't make their
statements any less erroneous. But backing away from the truth of your
evaluation of those who hold to a single sequence view, possibly shows that
you are holding to one standard for your friends and one for those with whom
you disagree. That is something our Lord warned us not to do.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 16:50:58 EDT