>Welcome to Derek, my agnostic evolutionist sparring partner from the
>Australian fidonet Creation v Evolution echo, to whom I made the fatal
>mistake of mentioning the Reflector! :-)
Thanks for the intro (I think). Apart from the "fatal mistake" comment! :-)
I'm finding the content of this discussion to be of a generally higher
quality and significantly more thought-provoking than that of our Fidonet
echo. This might have something to with a shortage of YEC's and an abundance
of TE's! :-) I get the distinct impression that many of the contributors to
this reflector have forgotten more about creation and evolution than you or
I, amateurs that we are, are ever likely to know.
>DM>I think that you may have made an error in assuming that Dawkins
>was talking about the same "bridge" event on page 162 as he was on
>page 161.
>Sorry Derek, but that won't wash. Most readers would regard "a perfect
>deal in bridge" (p161) as the same as "a perfect bridge hand".
I don't see why? On page 161, Dawkins clearly describes "a perfect deal in
bridge" as being "where each of the four players receives a complete suit of
cards". On page 162, Dawkins writes, concerning his hypothetical long-lived
aliens, "They will expect to be dealt a perfect bridge hand from time to
time ..." For a person (or alien) to be dealt "a perfect bridge hand" it
only requires that the cards *in their hand* be all of one suit. This is the
common usage of the terms "deal" and "hand". I don't play bridge, but I have
played enough euchre and 500 to know the difference between a deal and a hand.
>If Dawkins has switched meanings between pages then it is just another
>example of his use of subtle "tricks of the advocate's trade" ("The
>Blind Watchmaker", 1991, ppxiv).
Is it? How do you know? Is it not more likely that he simply assumed that
his readers would know the difference between a deal and a hand. If he is
remiss, then it is because he did not explicitly state the probability of
receiving a perfect hand in bridge (for the record, it is approximately
251,963,120,000 to 1), which would have made more evident the difference
between a deal and a hand.
And I find your adverse criticism of Dawkin's alleged "use of subtle 'tricks
of the advocate's trade'" somewhat curious, in light of your admiration of
Phil Johnson. What is it about Phil Johnson's "use of subtle 'tricks of the
advocate's trade'" that is less worthy of adverse criticism than that of
Dawkins? To be truly reasonable, it might be fairer to describe both of
their methods as *tools* rather than *tricks* of the advocates' trade. After
all, since both men are unashamed advocates of their respective, and
respected, philosophical positions, it seems hardly fair to adversely
criticise them for using the standard tools of advocacy in defence of those
positions. And even less fair, even perverse, to only adversely criticise
*one* of them, while admiring the other.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@telecom.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------