On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:27:36 -0600 (MDT) Denis Lamoureux wrote to
Brian Harper:
BH>It is true that Denis (and yours truly) have been very rough on
>Steve Jones. But don't lose sight of the fact that there has been
>more to Denis's replies to Steve than rough talk.
DL>And to be honest, I don't care for it (ie, the "rough talk"). But
>what does one do when confronted with such utter nonsense (eg, read
>what Stephen does with the Darwin quotes--it's outrageous)?
Denis could try dealing with them in an objective, scholarly way! :-)
DL>And I am seriously asking the question, what does one do with the
>Stephen Jones types of the world?
Denis doesn't have to do *anything* "with the Stephen Jones types of
the world". If we are wrong, why should that concern him? Just leave
us in our blissful ignorance.
DL>In earlier posts I tried a softer approach, now I've tried
>embarrassing him, nothing works.
Denis has finally cottonned on! :-) He could try courteous, reasoned
arguments, at the end of which we might agree to disagree. That's
after all what I thought this Reflector was for.
DL>And of course, point out his methodological and education
>deficiencies (which ARE NOT PERSONAL ATTACKS)
That's funny. All the Reflectorites (including at least one TE) who
sent me private messages asking me not to respond in kind to Denis'
"personal attacks", must have thought they were. Silly us! :-)
DL>and he whines like a dying horse (now this is a PERSONAL
>ATTACK--but a very true observation).
Oh good. We now have Denis' very first "PERSONAL
ATTACK"! :-) I wonder how he squares it with his tagline:
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
BTW I have not and am not whining. I ask no quarter. Denis and Brian
can say whatever they like. They only weaken whatever case they have.
DL>He seems to know it all, and that's all there is to it.
No. I certainly don't claim to "know it all". I present arguments
(most of which are not original) and expect evolutionists to present
counter-arguments. That's what I thought this mailing list is for.
But in any event, why is Denis concerned about me seeming "to know it
all"? We live on opposite sides of the globe and will probably never
meet. I cannot affect him adversely, even if I wanted to. Someone
who was really secure in their evolutionary beliefs would just smile
benignly at my efforts and after trying to correct me a few times
simply shrug his shoulders and ignore me.
DL>Any ideas?
Denis could try either: 1. address my posts in a scholarly, objective
and professional manner; or 2. ignore them. Personal attacks just
make me think he is hiding something:
"Ask that question and you will get heavy-handed ridicule from the
likes of Jukes and Provine. People who resort to ridicule are often
covering up something. In this case they are hoping to prevent
reasoned examination of a vulnerable assumption. The assumption is
that science knows of a mechanism for evolution (grand system) that
can produce eyes, brains, and even plant cells without the application
of massive amounts of preexisting intelligence."(Johnson P.E.
"Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", Foundation for
Thought and Ethics, 1990, p34)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------