> Denis L. wrote:
>
> <<Brother Jim, I'm feeling the heat of your flames on my hard drive
> already>>
>
> And you deserve it, boy. Some fuzzy thinkin' goin' on. Observe:
Yep, I am sure glad you're around to keep my thinkging straight.
Goodness, where would this world be without the pure thinking of the legal
intelligensia? Fewer murders walking the streets of California, eh?
> <<Inversely, "Why do CREATIONISTS label ANY critic of CREATIONISM an ipso
> facto "DARWINIST"?>>
>
> They don't. The preferred term of art for creationists seems to be
> "evolutionists." See, e.g., Gish, "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics."
Yep, still reading that high powered stuff, eh? How about citing Morris
too? And didn't you forget Hal Lindsey?
> << I work in a large
> university in the area of evolutionary biology--and I have never once
> heard my colleagues refer to themselves as "DARWINISTS.">>
>
> Yeah, like you expect them to be sitting around the faculty lounge singing,
> "Darwinists are we! Born to be free! Just like the fish in the sea!" JUST so
> you could overhear them...
Yep, Bellian argumentation at its best. If you can't beat them,
mock them and slander them.
> Your colleagues notwithstanding, people like Ernst Mayr actually embrace the
> term, putting a little "neo-" before it. Dawkins loves the term (even without
> the "neo-"). As he says in "The Blind Watchmaker": "Other books on Darwinism
> are...excellent and informative and should be read in conjunction with this
> one....I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world view
> HAPPENS to be true, but that it is the only known theory that COULD, in
> principle, solve the mystery of our existence....A good case can be made that
> Darwinism is true, not just on this planet, but all over the universe wherever
> life may be found." (TBW @ x)
>
> I guess the answer to your question, Denis, is that because Darwinists call
> themselves Darwinists, occasionally creationists will call them that as well.
> Or are you arguing that we cannot call them what they call themselves? What
> would your reasoning be on that one?
>
> <<Mike Behe is definitely a creationist, in its ontological sense,
> because he is a devout Roman Catholic>>
>
> Denis, we all know what the term "creationist" is meant to convey in the
> public square--a literal, 6-24-hr. day, young earth obscurantist. The term is
> a lot more "loaded" than Darwinist, which is why so many scientists outside
> the provinces of Canada actually use it. (Who do you think coined the term
> "neo-Darwinian synthesis" anyway? Aimee Semple McPherson?)
Is this a little patriot rhetoric? Do you think I read the Canadian
versions of Developmental Biology, or Cell, or Science or Nature, etc.?
Shame on you James. We might be the "little brother" to the north (and
trust me, in all seriousness, this is one Canucklehead who is very, very,
very grateful for America), but we're not that stupid . . . we watch CNN
and the Simpsons everyday . . . and we do acknowledge that America has the
fastest man in the world (Anyone going to bite on that one?)
> As Behe says, "Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to
> address a few basic questions at the beginning....Many people think
> questioning Darwinian evolution must be the equivalent to espousing
> creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth
> formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that
> is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the
> universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is..." (DBB @ 5)
>
> So, not only have you got a skewed view of the terminology, you also commit a
> minor sin which is so widespread it presages the end of civilization as we
> know it:
>
> << Most know little about Charles Darwin and most could care less.>>
>
> COULD CARE LESS?
That's exactly what I said Jim. But the reason it is such a shock to you
is because you're not in that environment day in and day out like I am
. . . ohhhhhhh, I did it again, I put those dirty robes on again. But
Jim if you were in that environment everyday you would know
what I was talking about. Only the Fundamentalist
mind operates with conspiracy models . . . but if the fundamentalist mind
would only have the sense/humility to show up in the biology labs and
paleo museums it would see those writing about Darwinian conspiracies are
only poor fiction writers.
> Off with your priestly robes!
Well, at least this is better than "Off with his head."
Dear Bother Jim,
Where do I start? Oh, I suppose I could take a run at your pristine legal
"logic." I mean, after all, aren't lawyers God's gift to the academy?
Heck, maybe I should take all my scientific results and walk over to the
law school and give them to one of your colleagues . . . really,
aren't biologists like me just mere technicians for intellectuals like
you? Better yet, maybe I should bring my results down to California where
the greatest legal minds reside . . . you know, guys like you, Johnie
Cochran, etc.
Enough of this crap. Folks you will note that Mr. Bell with his best
legal rhetoric did a little escape and evasion. I must admit he is a
colorful and clever fellow, and though irritating, he is always
entertaining. Note he did not include the most important sentence in my
post:
>> "For that matter, I can't think of ever seeing the term (i.e.,
>> Darwinism) in the modern evolutionary scientific professional
>> literature."
Now why did Mr. Bell exclude this sentence? It is very simple. He
doesn't read this literature . . . for that matter, I'd be willing to bet
he can't read this literature . . . he is a lawyer. He can't read this
stuff and appreciate its significance anymore than I can read his legal
professional literature. Oh, oh . . . watch Mr. Bell's cry . . . here it
comes, "Priestly robes, you're wearing you're priestly robes . . ."
Now please understand folks, I am not saying Jim is stupid. Far from it.
He is a very bright fellow. But all the intellectual talent in the world,
and no familiarity with the primary literature or intimate experience in
the discipline at best will make you dangerous--his error is called the
misappropriation of academic authority (You'll see a similar dynamic in
the Delphi oracle, and it is the common error of our so-called
"professionals" in our society).
Jim refers to Dawkins and Mayr. Why? Well, they usually write secondary
and tertiary stuff, often philosphical/historical, and often at the
popular level. These are not the guys banging out the modern
evolutionary synthesis today. This is the only literature Jim can read
and understand. But Jim, go to the library and get into the literature
scientists like myself read every day and you'll see the Dawkins/Mayr
rhetoric just isn't there, nor is the term "Darwinism." And you don't
need a PhD in biology to be respected by guys like me--Paul Nelson isn't a
biologist, but I can't think of too many guys who know as much about
evolution as he does. Why? It is because Nelson has paid
his dues and mastered a ton of the the primary literature.
As always, your brother in Christ Jesus,
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."
------------------------------------------------------------