On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:57:38 -0600 (CST), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
WE>The behavior of Laurie Appleton and his correspondents came up,
>so I thought I would put my own two cents in.
I presume this is in response to me posting:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 98 15:41:59 +0800
Subject: Re: Argument from authority? (was DIFFICULTIES OF DARWINISM 1.4-)
[...]
I found an echo called "Creation vs Evolution". I found a old
young-Earth creationist called Laurie quoting eminent evolutionists
with major problems about Darwinism. I was amazed-I didn't realise
that there *were* any major problems with Darwinism. But I thought
that the evolutionists on the echo (who seemed all to be science-
trained) would be easily answer Laurie, calmly, courteously, and
above all in the objective manner with which I thought that true
scientists had. So I was even more amazed when these evolutionists
could not satisfactorily answer Laurie, but resorted to abuse and
ridicule instead. My "baloney detector" antenna was automatically
activated and I started reading up anti- and pro- evolutionist
material from my local library to find out for myself
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note however that I did not post Laurie's surname. I think you
are unwise mentioning his full name. He is aware of this Reflector and
might feel he has to join in to rebut your personal criticisms of him. But
be assured that I haven't and won't tell him of your comments.
Also, please note that you were not one of the "correspondents" I was
referring to since you were not on the Creation vs Evolution [CVSE]
echo at the time I was there (1994-96). Since it is an Australian
Fidonet list, I would be surprised if you were ever on it. I have no
direct knowledge of any other forums in which Laurie debates, and
therefore I was not referring to those either.
WE>One reason that people might see Laurie quote things and receive
>apparently unwarranted abuse in return is that they come into the
>process in the middle, rather than having been there from the
>beginning and having the whole wearisome experience stretch out
>and onwards like some cyber version of the eternal and futile
>labors of Sisyphus.
There is *never* any excuse for "abuse". If one finds someone else's
posts "wearisome" (yes - even mine!) then the simplest thing to do is
ignore them. Abusing someone only makes it seem the abuser is
trying to hide something:
"People who resort to ridicule are often covering up something." (Johnson
P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", 1990, p34)
WE>Laurie enters a forum with broad announcements and starts pasting
>chunks of the "Little Red Quote Book (revised ed.)" into his posts.
This is a good example of unnecesary ridicule. Why not give its
correct title:
Snelling A., "The Revised Quote Book", Creation Science Foundation:
Brisbane QLD, 1990.
Though I am not a YEC, I found this to be an excellent resource,
since it is comprised almost entirely of quotes of prominent
evolutionists admitting problems with evolution.
WE>Laurie gets messages explaining how his quotes are misquotes of one
>form or the other. Laurie claims that anyone who challenges the quote
>either is challenging the quoted authority or is too stupid to
>understand what they are doing.
It is interesting that the standard response of evolutionists on CVSE
to Laurie's quotes was that they were "misquotes", "out-of-context",
"selective", etc, etc. It was like a mantra! It seemed to me to
stretch credulity a bit to think that *all* Laurie's quotes were
"misquotes". So I checked up on most of them in the original books
and articles and found they were mostly in context and accurate. So
I challenged evolutionists to make good their claim, but to my
recollection, they didn't even try. No wonder Laurie keeps at it!
If evolutionists actually took his quotes seriously and answered them
thoroughly, patiently and courteously, he would have less and less to
debate about. I know this for a fact, because Laurie tried posting
quotes for a young-Earth and global Flood to me, and I answered him
properly. If he repeated the same quote I said something like "refer
to my post of...". He eventually gave up.
WE>After a small interval, Laurie repeats the very same quote that was
>at issue, and without the slightest change in surrounding text due to
>the rebutting commentary. Within a few repetitions of this cycle,
>Laurie is receiving simply scathing replies, since none of the earlier
>attempts at communication started anything like an actual conversation.
I have no experience of Laurie on these other forums, but I was on
CVSE for over a year and I saw little evidence of this
"communication". I don't deny Laurie's tactics were frustrating to
some, but there was no excuse for the abuse and ridicule of this
elderly person that I saw on CVSE.
WE>To someone new to the forum, the regular roundhouse abuse that
>Laurie receives seems out of line with what he posts. To those
>who saw the original substantive replies go unheeded or scorned
>outright, the abuse does not seem so much out of line as it is
>ineffective.
Agreed. Abuse *is* "ineffective". Why don't you realise this and
either answer Laurie properly or ignore him? There may be are others
reading the exchanges (like me) who could benefit from evolutionists
calmly responding factually.
WE>For myself, I find the fact that certain persons find Laurie to
>be a role model of sorts is highly illuminating.
If this is meant to be me, it is a good example of what I mean. This is
straight out guilt by association. When evolutionists don't like the
message, the easiest thing is to shoot the messenger!
But for the record, I do not (nor ever did) find Laurie a "role model".
My point simply was that it was his quoting leading evolutionists
admitting problems with evolution, and the failure of the evolutionists on
the Fidonet echo to adequately rebut those quotes, that got me interested
in the Creation vs Evolution issue. If evolutionists had simply answered
Laurie's quotes calmly, courteously and factually, then I would probably
have lurked for a while and then left, confirmed in my 20-year assumption
that evolution was probably true and therefore was just God's way of
developing His creation.
Indeed, there is an interesting example of how this ad-hominem
attack-is-the-best-defence tactic backfired on evolutionists. When
Johnson's Darwin on Trial first appeared, there was a dismissive
response to it probably ghost-written by Eugenie Scott of the NCSE.
An then unknown biochemist named Mike Behe wrote to SCIENCE
protesting at this failure to take Johnson's arguments seriously and
rebut them properly. If SCIENCE had lived up to its name in
responding to Johnson's book, and picked someone less partisan than
Eugenie Scott to comment on it, then maybe Mike Behe would never have
written that protest letter, and Phil Johnson would never have heard
of him. But when Mike did write to SCIENCE, Phil made contact with
Mike, and the rest (as they say), is history!
For those who are interested, attached is Mike's letter, which is
a classic, and may even go down in history as a turning point in
the Creation/Evolution culture war:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding Evolution
The briefing about University of California, Berkeley, law professor
Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (News & comment, 26
July, p. 379) is a good illustration of the failure of the scientific
community to follow its own advice about the perennial evolution
controversy. Instead of simply addressing the skeptical arguments
advanced in the book, the article relies on ad hominem remarks. It is
pointed out that Johnson's religious views predispose him against
naked materialism (although in his book he states that he finds
nothing a priori incredible in God's using Darwinistic evolution to
produce life), and a science educator is trotted out to opine that
Johnson misunderstands the scientific process. Johnson is also found
guilty by association because Creationists like his book.
Well, now. It is also true that fascist governments have embraced
Darwinism, that most scientists are not trained logicians, and that
many commentators on evolution are predisposed in favor of naked
materialism. But all of this is name calling and quite beside the point.
In his book Johnson appears to be an interested, open-minded, and
very intelligent layman who sees large conclusions drawn from little
evidence, notices anomalies in current evolutionary explanations, and
will draw his own conclusions, thank you, about the validity of
Darwin's theory. A man like that deserves to be argued with, not
condescended to.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is not a difficult concept
to grasp, and Charles Darwin addressed The Origin of Species itself
to a general audience. But neither is it self-evident to many people
that natural selection can fully account for the world they observe.
Thus when questions about the theory arise in public forums, the
scientific community would do much better in the long run to
patiently list supporting facts and frankly admit where positive
evidence is lacking, rather than paternalistically maintaining that an
understanding of the theory of evolution is reserved for the
priesthood of professional scientists.
MICHAEL J. BEHE
Department of Chemistry,
Lehigh University,
Mountaintop Campus III,
111 Research Drive, Building A,
Bethlehem, PA 18015
30 AUGUST 1991
(Behe M.J., "Understanding Evolution", Letters, Science, 30 August
1991)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------