On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:29:38 -0500 you wrote:
>BH>Why do I make an issue of this? Well, Stephen, imagine yourself in
>the midst of a challenge you probably have had to deal with at one time or
>another: a disease that could become an epidemic....How wuld you react?
>About like the people in the evolution research community I suspect,
>because that is how they see creationist attacks.
[...]
SJ>This is a bit of a red-herring. :-) Creationists are generally not
>attacking science per se, certainly not practical applied science like
>medicine, but they are attacking the *metaphysical-naturalistic
>assumptions* behind much of what passes for evolutionary science.
BH>You're missing my point. All I was trying to accomplish was to
give you
>some inkling of how scientists typically react to creationists. I have a
>similar example with lawyers, which Phil admitted had merit. You are
>dealing with human beings when you deal with scientists, and I hope you
>want to lead some of them to Christ. If you intend to do that by building
>friendships with them, some degree of empathy is required.
Sorry I missed the point, but my reply was still partly relevant. As
to "empathy" with "scientists", no one is disputing that. I recently
posted how I helped lead a retired geologist to Christ. I had
"empathy" by advising his well- meaning YEC daughter-in-law not to
insist he had to accept the world was created in 6 days. "Do we begin
again to commend ourselves?" (2Cor 3:1). No. But I am resisting the
attempt (perhaps inadvertent) to stereotype me and creationists in
general as anti-science.
It is not science per se that is the issue in this debate. It is the
apriori denial by those who make the rules in science that science
cannot ever consider (and thereby in effect denies) that an
Intelligent Designer is behind the order and regularity in nature that
is the prerequisite for science.
Even Dawkins admits that living things appear to be designed for a
purpose:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p1)
Why then is this ruled out as a legitimate scientific position? Why
is Dawkins aided and abetted by the rulers of science (he has been
appointed Professor of the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public
Understanding of Science at Oxford), to promote his metaphysical
naturalistic philosophy and theists like Dean Kenyon removed from his
post when he dares to suggest that this apparent design is real?
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------