On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, James Hopper wrote:
> >On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, James Hopper wrote:
> >
> >> This sounds like a someone unwilling to debate the evidence and relying on
> >> personal attack to carry his argument. Pretty weak approach. Surely, Denis
> >> you don't think the evidence for evolution is as firm as that for
> >> heliocentrism, do you? If you do, please explain why.
> >
DL:
> >I imagine you will probably think I'm attacking you for asking the
> >following question: Are you a biologist? And do you study biology in an
> >area that is significant to understanding evolution?
>
JH:
> No, I am not a biologist. I am a mathematics teacher and thus I am trained
> in logical argument, and and I can evaluate a reasoned defense of an
> argument.
I love this defense--it's Phil Johnson's and the implication is only
legal and math scholars are the "logically clean ones" in the academy. So
I guess the rest of us, the "logically unclean", should just hand over the
data and let you do the thinking . . . and we'll be your technicians.
Furthermore, you will only be able to "evaluate a reasoned defense of an
argument" if you are familiar with the primary data--and that's my point.
You and Phil probably can't even read the primary literature relevant to
evolution. Now if you want to go and complain that I am attacking you
personally go ahead . . . but face that facts, and be honest enough to
admit you are too far away from the data to even assess with the less
amount of authority. And the same to be said of me in reading the math or
legal primary literature.
> However, the argument should be on the content of the discussion
> and not rely on personal comments about one's opponent.
That's fair, but if one is not even familiar with the content (ie, the
primary data and literature) and relies on the secondary sources (ie the
Phil Johnson tertiary literature) then one familiar with the primary
issues certain can call another with regard to the latter's ignorance and
even with regard to that second person's appreciation of the 8th
Commandment.
> However, I have
> read a number of people who are biologists who disagree with your
> assessment, (Walter Remine, Michael Denton and Robert Shapiro for example)
> I also disagree with your feeling that only biologists are capable of
> understanding and evaluating the evidence. I also wonder if it is even
> possible to obtain an advanced degree in biology without agreeing with the
> standard Darwinian paradigm.
It is possible.
I started my PhD in biology as a Progressive Creationist and I could
have stayed totally away from the evolution issue. For that matter, I
passed my PhD comprehensive exam and I was still a PC and I had no
problem.
> The facts of biology don't seem to be as much
> in dispute as the interpretation of the facts. I would like to hear some of
> your reasons for such a strong statement rather than a description of your
> qualifications.( although I do think that your expertise should carry some
> weight)
I'll send you a personal post of an interchange I had with Alvin
Plantinga.
Blessings,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------