<<By the way, Johnson does indeed speak as a priest of the high church of
anti-evolutionism. And he too gets his facts wrong. I have posted this several
times. Johnson writes:
"By what Darwinian process did useful hind limbs wither away to vestigial
proportions, and at what stage in the transformation from rodent to sea
monster did this occur?>>
You're darned right you've posted this several times. It's all you seem to
have. It's a tiny part of a much larger argument, but I guess if it's all
you've got it's not surprising you keep using it. It effectively deflects
dealing with the main issues.
As to priesthoods, we were comparing the ability of universities to ban
professors from the classroom. Phil Johnson doesn't have that power, does he?
Maybe you know something I don't. Can Phil keep anyone from being published in
Nature or Science? Has he had anyone fired from those journals lately? What
school board has he effectively censored in the recent past? Please post any
FACTS you have in this regard.
I wrote:
<<And when was the last time the ACLU represented ICR?
Glenn wrote:
<<I have posted my ideas on Talk origins and got no flack at all and I was
arguing for a historical Genesis 1-11.
Huh? This is what is called a "non-responsive answer." And anecdotal evidence
from talk.origins is, well, a two-edged sword. If you want to hear stories
about the temperate, tolerant, open minded folks at talk.origins, I'll be
happy to give you a few.
<<Maybe the problem is not that
evolutionists hate the Bible, but that they hate factual error.>>
No, what they hate is an interpretation of the facts that differs from the
Party line. Fact: no transitional line from fish to amphibian. Party line #1:
it's unreasonable to expect to find these transitions. Party line #2:
evolution happens in bursts. Dissent: Natural selection cannot explain the
package of adaptational changes needed (e.g., Taylor, Johnson, Denton).
Priesthood response to Dissent: Burn 'em. Get 'em out of the classroom. Don't
let students hear such nonsense. Don't publish 'em. Give their books scathing
reviews that use the word "Fundamentalist" over and over again, etc.
And they'll tolerate the Bible as long as no one takes it seriously. If you
read it as requiring the special creation of man, for example, that's going
too far. Get the stake and kindling ready.
<<I am disappointed you didn't think that clever. Oh well, you are hard to
please sometimes.>>
Truth pleases me. Make me happy in 1997, huh? ;-)
Jim