From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 02:13:53 EDT
Glenn-
You wrote: "Josh, have you ever noticed how you seem quite often to think
others don't think critically?"
-I think this is the first time I ever used this term, and also would point
out that I did not accuse anyone specifically of this crime. I do, however,
cringe when I see debate tactics being employed as truth statemtents, and so
I have no problem shooting off my own debate rhetoric from time to time.
(Howard's comments imply strongly that ID is way off base in their
criticisms. This, by the way is the issue I specifically responded to, not
the credibility of this claim. If I disagreed with the claim, I may have
actually offered some reasons for it.)
"Have you ever noticed that you almost always oppose scientific
explanations?"
-I wish you could be more specific. I look up Pubmed articles related to my
field on a daily basis, rarely do I "oppose" them. By the way, are you
equating "interpretation" with "explanation"? If so, then I have a lot of
problems with many interpretations I see that do not seem reasonable. For
example, Micheal Ruse spoke at my university and I had the opportunity of
chatting with him over lunch. During his lecture he cited many examples of
evolution in action, yet when probed to consider scenarios based upon actual
facts from science, he was quite lacking. He specifically claimed that
genome size cripples organisms to support a conclusion that he was drawing.
I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with his conclusions based on his
inaccurate depiction of science, and the lack of mechanism or detail. My
colleague agreed with me, and also disagreed with his explanations and
conclusions, despite being an atheistic evolutionist. I think it should be
quite obvious that an explanation lacking detail or mechanism is much more
prone to error than one complete with it. Suggesting that those who remain
skeptical of explanations wanting in detail or mechanism are only motivated
by some other personal problem appears to be a way of discounting them
rather than dealing with their criticisms.
"Have you ever noticed the logical deduction that this requires that you are
the most critically thinking individual on earth?"
-Perhaps you are uncomfortable that I remain critical of Darwinian
evolution? Perhaps if I had posted an email consisting of an equally strong
statement supporting evolution, you would have told me how right I was. I
guess if you construe my participation on this forum the way you have, I
would agree that you have made a logical, although not the only possible,
deduction. I however, think that it is poorly represented for a journal of
professional Christian scientists to consistently portray on its' email
listserve that all scientists accept evolutionary scenarios with high
confidence, and only the silly little IDers (who, of course, are actually
politicians and followers of Reverend Moon -can we say Ad Hominem- rather
than scientists) or uneducated bible literalists disagree. Maybe Howard,
despite is Anti-ID campain, should quit belittling the criticism that ID has
generated, regardless of their agenda or motivations.
"Have you ever noticed that this logically requires that you be one of the
few people with the true knowledge on the face of the earth, i.e., that the
vast majority of others are wrong?"
-Tsk, tsk, aren't we taking our theory a bit personal? Given your
assumptions and subsequent deduction, this wouldn't be too bad I guess.
"Have you considered how this might look a bit egotistical to those
observing you?"
-And how would Howard's comments appear to those still open/interested in
the claims from those nasty "Iders?" I'll explicitly state that I'm not
calling him egotistical, simply dogmatic. I'd prefer to challenge the fact
that he dogmatically adhers to opposing ID at every possibility, and if that
appears to be egotistical to you, my apologies. (By the way, are those who
author pro-ID papers in the PCSF also so egotistically inclined in your
careful estimation?) In the end, I am a Christian scientist, and I do not
agree with every evolutionary scenario that comes my way. However you
perceive the opinion I have of myself when I speak critical comments
concerning evolution theories is up to you. But my ego is certaintly not
the issue of science that I'm interested in discussing here. I don't see
how airing this on the listserve is constructive or beneficial to anyone,
unless you have deeper intentions than looking out for my personal growth
and maturation with insightful questions.
"I only mention this because when I was an anti-evolutionist, I was plagued
with these problems as well."
-Well, I certaintly don't label myself as an anti-evolutionist. But I
choose not to be a dogmatist either. But I do know that seeking for highly
detailed causal explanations regarding the mechanisms for deriving
biological features is not laughing matter, nor a criticism to be viewed
simply as irrelevant. (Another side note: I did not generate the criticism
that ID came up with, I simply happen to find validity in it. Suggesting
that I have an inflated ego for finding validity in some of the criticisms
from the ID camp is a little bizarre to me.)
"I could never be happy about a scientific discovery because I had to
disagree with it, had to explain it away and comment on how ridiculous it
was for people to believe that stuff."
I'm really having a hard time finding the "scientific discovery" hidden in
the article in question, which basically laid out a disputable hypothesis.
But I don't care at all about the details of this particular hypothesis, I
care more about the rhetoric suggesting that the ID criticism asking for
detailed mechanistic information is irrelevant or simply misguided. If
you'd believe me, I never have said that it is ridiculous for anyone to
believe evolution. In fact before I really cared about this whole debate,
prior to say 2-3 years ago, I simply accepted evolution without a hiccup and
believed that whatever "apparent" inconsistencies were created with the
bible could be solved through various interpretations. Only after I read
Richard Dawkins did I become quite hostile to the confidence and veracity of
evolutionary "explanations." I do believe that some could hold to the
theory with less dogmatic perserverance (clarification: I am not
specifically citing anyone.) In fact I find Howard's discussions about his
views being a carefully placed wager refreshing. His continual opposition
to the followers of Rev. Moon is a little more suspect.
"It meant that I thought I knew better than all those others, when in fact,
I was merely being egotistical."
-Would you accept the possibility that I do not hold my opinion as better
than others, and that I am not being egotistical? People of different
opinions can disagree without one side being egotistical. Was it
egotistical in Germany during WWII for Jews to disagree with the majority
Nazi regime? A majority vote doesn't indicate who is/is not egotistical
(and I am NOT implying that evolutionists are like the Nazi regime.) In
fact, I know nothing of "old seashells," rock formations, hydrocarbon
deposits, fossils, and many other topics, from which I have completely
withheld any comment. Case in point, Dr. Campbell has engaged in discussing
the details of this hypothesis, and I have made no comments regarding his
statements, because I have nothing to offer. If I have something to say, I
try to reserve it for those things on which I have a comment and an opinion
that is based upon something more than my ego. But I think that is enough
defending myself for one night.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 02:14:17 EDT