I appreciate your feedback, James. I'll need to mull it over for a few
days; I don't at the moment feel that I was wrong although, based upon
our history, I will probably come around to seeing things your way.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:19:55 -0600 James Mahaffy <mahaffy@mtcnet.net>
writes:
> First you attack Keith by associating him with Genie. While both Genie
> and Keith like the new standards, Genie is no friend to Christian
> faith.
Why is an association with Genie an attack? Apart from their religious
views, their beliefs are identical as far as I can tell, which is what I
was saying. It bothers me somewhat that a Christian and an atheist can
have identical beliefs about origins, except for Keith's belief that God
is behind it. I guess that is fundamentally what TE is, that God left no
fingerprints?
Incidentally, I realize that God will use all of us in different ways to
reach different people. Keith is obviously boldly proclaiming his faith
in his own way, for which I have the utmost respect.
> I am sure you would not like us to generalize that your position is the
same as every > YEC.
If that were true, then it wouldn't matter what I "would not like."
> Second you say, "to be candid in the presentation of *all* of the data,
> then you [Keith] would blunt the criticism you rightly receive." Bill,
> Keith is a person of integrity and very knowledgeable. That does not
> make his position right but this attack is not fair. As you may know,
I
> disagreed and still do with his interpretation of the Cambrian (see
> archives for last May), but I very much respected his command of the
> literature. Disagree with Keith by all means but disagree with his
> postion and don't attack his integrity.
James, if Keith does in fact withhold data (or actually, I suppose, fail
to mention the things that his data cannot explain) then his actions are
open for criticisms. I did *not* say that he has a lack of integrity or
knowledge, just that he deserves the criticism he receives.
Perhaps I am more sensitive to this because of my experience with the way
coal data is interpreted, or IMHO, misinterpreted. I will make a
separate post to illustrate this, but the point to be made is that our
interpretations of data are not always accurate, and evolution is an
interpretation. This is rarely mentioned; evolution is presented as a
fact about which there is no controversy among scientists and educated
people.
> Sometimes this list is dominated by articulate folks of a TE position
> and we need ASA folks of a different perspective like you Bill active
on
> the list. Lets just be careful in the way we pick on each other.
If you're complaining about the tenor of my post, then let me just go
ahead and agree that I probably could have softened it, and for that I do
apologize to Keith and the group.
By the way, Keith, you said: "You will notice a comment by John Weister.
I want to be on the record, as an intimate participant in this whole
affair, that his characterization of the standards is completely false.
[snip]
BTW: For those who heard my comments at the last ASA meeting, you will
find
in this article examples of several of the misunderstandings and
misrepresentations of science that I discussed."
In your opinion, Keith, is John's "false" characterization of the
standards a result of misunderstanding or misrepresentation? Personally,
I would think John is well versed in these issues and would not be guilty
of misunderstanding the intent of the standards.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 23 2001 - 03:04:26 EST