From: "Stephen Jones", INTERNET:sjones@iinet.net.au
To: Jim Bell, 70672,1241
Date: Sun, Jun 2, 1996, 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Of PhDs, priests and logic
Sender: sjones@iinet.net.au
Received: from classic.iinet.com.au (classic.iinet.net.au [203.0.178.1]) by
dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id SAA26292; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 18:02:46 -0400
Received: from jazz.iinet.com.au (root@jazz.iinet.com.au [203.0.178.3]) by
classic.iinet.com.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA16020; Mon, 3 Jun 1996
06:02:41 +0800
Received: from `55Ry (jazz42.nv.iinet.net.au [203.14.174.42]) by
jazz.iinet.com.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA24237; Mon, 3 Jun 1996
05:30:50 +0800
Message-Id: <199606022130.FAA24237@jazz.iinet.com.au>
From: "Stephen Jones" <sjones@iinet.net.au>
To: "Brian D. Harper" <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Cc: "Jim Bell" <70672.1241@CompuServe.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 96 06:23:36 +0800
Reply-To: "Stephen Jones" <sjones@iinet.net.au>
Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Stephen Jones's Registered PMMail 1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Of PhDs, priests and logic
Brian
(This is a public message. I am unsubscribed from the Reflector to
catch up. If you reply via the Reflector, please cc. it to me. Thanks
-SJ).
On Wed, 22 May 1996 23:21:38 -0400 (EDT), Brian D. Harper wrote:
>BH>I think this is what it usually boils down to. People get
>shot down and they don't like it (understandably :). Rather
>than own up, they want to blame someone else. This is the
>"its not my fault" generation.
>SJ>Again, perhaps Brian can let me know who is the "someone else" I
>am supposed to be blaming?
>BH>I spent a great deal of time and effort trying to show you
>that your either intelligent design or chance argument
>was faulty. When you finally became aware of this what
>did you do? Rather than admit your error you tried to
>blame me for putting words in your mouth.
>SJ>No. You did switch arguments mid-stream from Natural-Supernatural
>to Chance-Intelligent Design.
BH>NO, Steve, this is just plain false. I've already back-tracked
>through the thread in question to show clearly that you were the one
>who introduced chance vs. intelligent design. Now, will you finally
>admit that it was your argument and that its been refuted? I'm
>really embarrassed for you Steve.
I would gladly "admit" it if it really was my "argument" and that it
had "been refuted".
I don't know why *you* are "really embarrassed" for *me*. Even if I
was wrong (which I'm not), it's nothing to be "embarrassed" about.
>SJ>I admitted my "error" in not picking up the switch and going
>along with it for a while. I am happy to accept either set and
>debate that. Which is it to be?
BH>The debate is already over.
I thought it might be! :-)
>BH>A year or so ago I spent a great amount of time and effort
>debating the origin of life on talk.origins. At the time I was a
>progressive creationist with views very much like yours.
>SJ>That's interesting. Denis says something similar. Perhaps Brian
>will state exactly what his "progressive creationist...views" were,
>and why he abandoned them?
BH>No, I really don't want to go into the specifics of my views on
>progressive creation.
Well then how can we asssess your claim that "A year or so ago" you
were "a progressive creationist with views very much like" mine?
BH>My main reasons for switching views were:
>
>1) I learned the difference between the science of evolution and
>evolutionism.
>
>2) I found out that almost everything I knew about evolution was
>wrong. Some of what I'm learning now makes sense to me.
>
>3) I like the theology. Sorry, I don't mean to shock people ;-).
>
>4) I think the actions of many creationists are doing great harm
to the church and I want to oppose those as best I am able.
>
>There's probably more but this will do for now.
Hmmm. Thanks for being so frank. I now understand why your posts are
so antagonistic towards "creationists"! :-) It appears you have been
convinced by the non-theists on "talk.origins" of the error of your
"progressive creationist" ways and now see yourself as a guardian of
"the church", with a mission to "oppose" those "creationists" who you
now believe "are doing great harm to" it?
Perhaps you would be kind enough to state what exactly is that "great
harm" that "creationists" (including progressive creationists") are
doing to "the church"?
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution:
Jim Bell 70672,1241
Cc:
70672,1241