I see no justification for posting second hand derogatory comments
of this sort here. I don't know whether your cryptic "=anonymously" means
that you didn't tell him who Howard Van Till was or that (as is the case)
your friend remains anonymous. If the latter then this is subject to the
same condemnation as most anonymous letters. If the former, then you could
have saved a lot of trouble by noting that the source of the comments is an
astrophysicist who is certainly familiar with elementary mathematical
concepts.
George Murphy
Allen Roy wrote:
> This is a comment from a friend to whom I showed Van Tills comments =
> anonymously.
>
> Allen
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
> I wonder if this guy thinks the Pythagorean Theorem is smoke and =
> mirrors. I
> wonder if he's ever heard of the word "axiom" or "definition" or =
> "theorem".
> Doesn't sound like it. The title of the book is in reference to a
> collection of mathematical THEOREMS (proven in isolation from Dembski by
> other mathematicians with no interest in creation and evolution), not
> wishful confusing conjectures that this man is probably more use to. =
> What
> would be much more engaging would be if this man could dismantle =
> Dembski's
> mathematical work, instead of trying to tarnish its effectiveness by
> misrepresenting it as a confusing religious or philosophical work.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 00:05:30 EDT