RE: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)

From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 19:29:50 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: Magnetic field energy loss"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Dr. Blake Nelson [mailto:bnelson301@yahoo.com]
    >Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 5:01 PM
    >To: Glenn Morton
    >Cc: ASA
    >Subject: RE: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)
    >
    >
    >Hi Glenn,
    >
    >Sorry, you misunderstood my failed attempt at being
    >pithy, as George's follow up and my response
    >clarified.
    >
    >I agree that one cannot make a fact/interpretation
    >dichotomy. In explaining the context of the use of
    >the phrase in law, I was just trying to clear up the
    >error in the understanding of what the phrase meant.
    >As I stated in my reply to George, it is not meant to
    >be a philosophical statement, but a pragmatic approach
    >to a practical and very real problem that existed in
    >product liability law. In that respect, IIRC Jay
    >seemed to be inappropriately extending the concept.
    >By the same token, your understanding of the statement
    >was not what the statement meant. But, not knowing
    >what the term of art means in the law, that is
    >certainly no fault of your own. ;)

    Hi Blake, Yeah, I don't do product law (and no one is asking for my
    expertise there either). When that phrase was first put out, I was trying
    to be a bit 'pithy' too. Not sure it worked as I liked.

    YECs often use this fact/interpretation entanglement to claim that science
    is mere supposition and that all the facts of science can be re-interpreted
    within a YEC paradigm. So, while I am aware of the entanglement, I am
    careful to distinguish it from the idea that mere whimsy of belief can
    explain everything.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 19:30:23 EDT