On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:54:39 -0400 (EDT), Brian D. Harper wrote:
>[...]
>BH>NO, Steve, this is just plain false. I've already back-tracked
>through the thread in question to show clearly that you were the one
>who introduced chance vs. intelligent design. Now, will you finally
>admit that it was your argument and that its been refuted? I'm
>really embarrassed for you Steve.
>SJ>I would gladly "admit" it if it really was my "argument" and that
>it had "been refuted". I don't know why *you* are "really
>embarrassed" for *me*. Even if I was wrong (which I'm not), it's
>nothing to be "embarrassed" about.
BH>One should not be embarrassed about being wrong. Refusing to admit
>to making an argument that the record clearly shows you did make
>and then trying to switch the blame to someone else is something
>which should be embarrassing. That you are not embarrassed by this
>is truly amazing.
You miss the point Brian. I am not "refusing to admit" anything. If
you can show me where I am wrong, I will "admit" it. There is
nothing "amazing" about me not being "embarrassed", for "trying to
switch the blame to someone else" because I don't believe I did! I
do not concede that "the record clearly shows" that I was "the one
who introduced chance vs. intelligent design". However, since you
claim to have "back-tracked through the thread in question", please
post an extract from the message where I allegedly "introduced chance
vs. intelligent design". If you are right I will have no problem
whatsoever apologising for my mistake, and seeking your forgiveness.
>[...]
>
>BH>No, I really don't want to go into the specifics of my views on
>progressive creation.
>
>SJ>Well then how can we asssess your claim that "A year or so ago"
>you were "a progressive creationist with views very much like" mine?
BH>I guess we can't, shucks.
That's right! :-)
>BH>My main reasons for switching views were:
>
>1) I learned the difference between the science of evolution and
>evolutionism.
>
>2) I found out that almost everything I knew about evolution was
>wrong. Some of what I'm learning now makes sense to me.
>
>3) I like the theology. Sorry, I don't mean to shock people ;-).
>
>4) I think the actions of many creationists are doing great harm
>to the church and I want to oppose those as best I am able.
>
>There's probably more but this will do for now.
>SJ>Hmmm. Thanks for being so frank. I now understand why your
>posts are so antagonistic towards "creationists"! :-)
BH>Antagonistic only towards certain creationists.
You are "antagonistic" towards *this "certain creationist" Brian, and
I am neither a YEC, nor am I doing "great harm to the church"! :-)
It seems to me that your antagonism is more towards creationists in
general and is based on your committment to your newfound "theology"
than it is to any "great harm" being done "to the church".
>SJ>It appears you have been convinced by the non-theists on
>"talk.origins" of the error of your "progressive creationist" ways
>and now see yourself as a guardian of "the church", with a mission
>to "oppose" those "creationists" who you now believe "are doing
>great harm to" it?
BH>This is a lie. Try to do better.
I make mistakes but I don't "lie", Brian. You seem to be too ready
to assume the worst in those with whom you disagree. In particular
youy appear to be too quick to assume moral fault (ie. "lie") in
creationists rather than intellectual fault (ie. mistake). I
prefaced my summary of what it seemed to me you were saying. If I am
wrong, please indicate where I am wrong.
>SJ>Perhaps you would be kind enough to state what exactly is that
>"great harm" that "creationists" (including progressive
>creationists") are doing to "the church"?
BH>This applies to certain individuals and certainly not all
creationists,
That's a relief! :-) You originally said "many creationists", so I
assumed you meant a large number of creationists. Who are these
"certain individuals" that are doing "great harm" to "the church"?
BH>1) Causing internal strife within the church by distorting (either
>deliberately or out of ignorance) the science of evolution.
How do you propose to distinguish between "deliberately" and "out
of ignorance"?
BH>2) Causing non-believers to turn away from the church in disgust
>due to public mis-representations and blatant lies.
There appears to be a bit of a contradiction here. In point 1) you
concede that this "internal strife within the church" may be caused
"out of ignorance". Yet in point 2) you only mention that
"non-believers turn away from the church in disgust" due to "public
mis-representations and blatant lies". It seems to me that although
you concede theoretically that the problem may be caused "out of
ignorance", in practice you are going to mostly assume it is
"mis-representations and blatant lies".
Have you thought that your plan to "oppose those as best I am able"
may actually increase this "internal strife within the church"? You
grante that some of this "harm" may be "out of ignorance". YECs in
particular may be wrong, and a few of them may even be charlatans,
but how will you know that others are making "public mis-
representations and blatant lies", rather than honest mistakes "out
of ignorance"?
My personal experience with you on this Reflector is that you are too
ready to put the worst possible construction on honestly held beliefs
from the creationist side. In view of this tendency, IMHO you are
the wrong person to attempt this task - you are more likely to
exacerbate the situation, than resolve it. My advice to you is to
try a more even-handed conciliatory approach by pointing out that
there are errors on *both* sides of the Creation-Evolution
controversy? In the long run this may be more effective than direct
opposition.
Actually, Brian, from the increasingly hostile and ad hominem tone of
your posts to me, on the Mt 18:7 principle, I think I will try to
limit my direct dialogue with you. In future, if I do reply to your
posts, it will (as with Denis) be directed to the Group, not to you
personally. I am sorry it has had to come to this.
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------