Hi Glenn,
You wrote:
> 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
There is a big difference between
(1) calling some ignorant of a specific technical fact, and
(2) calling certain people ignorant, period.
In fact, this is exactly what you yourself also said when you wrote
(1) "I am ignorant of many things in this world. Being ignorant is not a
shame in any way shape or form" (31 May 2002 17:08:51 -0700), and
(2) "Yeah, lots of anti-evolutinists are that ignorant" (21 May 2002
21:08:30 -0700).
And as I told you before (03 Jun 2002 17:27:40 +0200), I meant (1), but
you extended that to be equal to (2), so I realized my carelessness in
formulating something which could be misunderstood. So, in retrospect, I
apologized for using this term at all. I clearly stick to what I meant
with my statement (1), but wanted to clarify that I never thought of
applying (2).
Furthermore, even within (1), there are points to qualify:
(a) Someone might know that different species usually have different
cytochrome c sequences, but might think that, in a given species, there
is only one specific cyt.c sequence which works "properly" or optimally,
all the others having selective disadvantages under certain
circumstances; and
(b) someone else might be of the erroneous opinion that there is only
one cyt.c sequence for all species, and anything else doesn't work.
Both (a) and (b) might say: "there is only one sequence that works". But
only view (b) reflects a serious ignorance about proteins. Even today,
we are nor sure about (a) in most cases. In each case, one should first
make sure what exactly an author means.
So your charging me with a double standard is mistaken. And why do you
count me among the "anti-evolutionists"? I have repeatedly and clearly
stated that I believe that the Creator used evolution, even in the
origin of humans (apart from the spiritual "image of God"). But should
that prevent me from also stating that I believe the known evolutionary
mechanisms are insufficient to produce everything autonomously?
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 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 10:13:33 EDT