From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 02:05:28 EDT
Meant for whole list
> Thanks for these, but you haven't answered my question on what all this
says
> about Wells ID and DI, but I think I know what you think and I concur.
>
> I prefer Charles Hodge's attitude in 1874 after he wrote "What is
Darwinism
> ?" which is the best anti-evolution book ever written. He was relieved
that
> Asa Gray, an evolutionist, reckoned that Hodge had been totally and fair
in
> his treatment of Darwinism. That was more important to Hodge than whether
> Gray agreed with him. What a wonderful attitude! Hodge was wrong over
> Darwinism in my opinion shared by Gray! But he was scrupulously
> honest.That's far more important than being right!
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sarah Berel-Harrop" <sec@hal-pc.org>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Phillip Johnson (and Methodological Naturalism)
>
>
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:45:57 +0100
> > "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Precisely. What does this say about Wells and DI and also ID. I think
> > >Wells has more Ph Ds than most of us so he cannot hide behind
> > >incompetence. If he is not incompetent then what is he?
> > >
> > >How does this compare withn Haeckel on embryology?
> >
> > Michael: See, eg
> >
> > http://pharyngula.org/comments/9_0_1_0_C/
> >
> >
> > Keith,
> >
> > You may be thinking of Coyne's letter to the editor of
> > the Pratt Tribune, here:
> > http://www.jodkowski.pl/ka/PrattTribune005.html
> >
> > Or Coyne's Nature review of Wells' book, here:
> > http://www.answersinscience.org/Coyne-IconsReview.htm
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 05:16:07 EDT