Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents - correction

Sorry, George, but this is unacceptable. There is no need to set up a bully defense through appeal to authority. You've excused yourself from the discussion because you didn't use the terms 'natural agents' or 'non-natural agents' - - "I haven't used that language," were your words. Why not leave it at that? My post, after all, was not addressed to you.
 
Keith Miller is defending MN. Not you. You said yourself that you're 'not stuck on it.' So, why attack me in this way by suggesting I've pulled out of discussions with you unless you are defending MN in a closet sort of way?

If you think Keith is not a prominent proponent of MN, then you are free to say that on this list (you've now suggested he is 'one proponent'). I've noted the book, Perspectives of an Evolving Creation, in which Keith was the editor and you were a contributor, George. This is a prominent book in the discourse that involves MN. Thus, I consider Keith Miller a prominent proponent of MN.
 
You're welcome to suggest how I've 'bailed out' of discussions with you in another thread and to call me to task if you like. But that has nothing to do with the challenge I've laid down here in this thread quite plainly and openly. If Keith can't or won't answer the question, it is, indeed, and will go down as, a minor victory against MN.
 
But let us be crystal clear: a victory against MN is *NOT* a victory against 'science.' It is a victory, as I said, "against MN as an incoherent ideology rather than simply as ‘the way science is (and supposedly always has been) done’."

This is far from silly, George, and I think you know it.
 
Peace be with you,
Gregory
 

--- On Sun, 4/19/09, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents - correction
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 11:24 PM



Gregory's notion that he can claim "victory against MN" simply because one proponent of that view has chosen not to expand upon one statement that he made is silliness in the extreme.  Gregory has bailed out more than once on discussions I've had with him (back when I thought such attempts might accomplish something) but I've never claimed victory against - well, I'm not sure what.  Whatever he calls his position.
 
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Arago
To: asa@calvin.edu ; Jon Tandy ; TDavis@messiah.edu ; kbmill@ksu.edu
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Natural Agents - Cause and Effect, Non-Natural Agents - correction

Line Correction:
 
"Not to reply (unless it is for some reason not possible to reply at this time) would result in an on-line [i.e. ASA listserv] victory against MN as an incoherent ideology rather than simply as ‘the way science is (and supposedly always has been) done’."

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 19 16:10:22 2009