On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:32:29 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[split here]
>SJ>For the umpteenth time-I am *not* using "the argument from
>>authority"!! I am arguing *against* Darwinist's "argument from
>>authority"!!!! Really Brian-how many times do I have to say it?
BH>Well, earlier in this thread you wrote:
>
>#SJ>I am completely unrepentant that this part of the series is an
>#argument from authority. Darwinists use the argument from authority
>#routinely-their works are full of claims that "all reputable biologists
>#accept evolution", etc. As Johnson points out, appeal to authority
>#is particularly unavoidable in the case of Darwinism:
>
>So hopefully you can understand that I'm confused by your position.
>But, the important thing is that you've repented, so we can
>drop this.
No. We can't "drop" this after you have dredged up this earlier post
and ignored my clarifications in intervening ones! Here are the *full*
facts:
1. I wrote the above on *4 February* (a *month and a half* ago)
"that this part of the [difficulties of Darwinism] series is an
argument from authority":
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 98 22:57:40 +0800
Subject: Re: DIFFICULTIES OF DARWINISM 1.4-
[...]
I am completely unrepentant that this part of the series is an
argument from authority. Darwinists use the argument from authority
routinely-their works are full of claims that "all reputable biologists
accept evolution", etc. As Johnson points out, appeal to authority
is particularly unavoidable in the case of Darwinism:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. But then on 14 February (over a *month* ago) I clarified my
position stating that it was "a counter-argument to the usual
Darwinist "argument from authority":
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-)
[...]
BH>Let me try to clarify my position. What I said was that there
>was a danger of this turning into something like an argument
>from authority. But the information you present does not
>*have* to be presented as an argument from authority.
I am not sure that it *is* exactly "an argument from authority".
Usually that takes the form of "all reputable biologists accept
evolution". I am simply claiming that *some* don't accept
*Darwinism*. So it is really a counter-argument to the
usual Darwinist "argument from authority".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Then over *two weeks* ago, on 2 March, I clarified it still
further by pointing out that: a) "I was arguing against the
Darwinist argument from authority"; and b) "creationists are entitled
to rebut that Darwinist argument from authority by producing their
own authorities who argue against Darwinist evolution":
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "Evolution" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 98 22:21:58 +0800
Subject: Re: Argument from authority? (was DIFFICULTIES OF
DARWINISM 1.4-)
BH>OK, fine, but now I'm becoming a bit confused. Perhaps I
>misunderstood what you meant by unavoidable. I thought you were
>arguing that it is unavoidable for creationists to use the argument
>from authority since evolutionists use the argument. A kind of
>"turn about is fair play" type thing. Can you clarify?
OK. Firstly, in my Difficulties of Darwinism series, I was arguing
against the Darwinist argument from authority that "all reputable
scientists accept that evolution is a fact", etc, by pointing out
that not all scientists accept that *Darwinist* evolution is a fact.
To be sure, Darwinists sometimes make the same point, but it is
muted. Also, because the words "evolution" and "Darwin's theory of
evolution" (etc), are used interchangeably, the impression is still
given that Darwinist evolution is a fact.
Secondly, the argument from authority is used by Darwinists routinely
and unavoidably. Therefore creationists are entitled to rebut that
Darwinist argument from authority by producing their own authorities
who argue against Darwinist evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Then *one week* ago on 10 March, I stated that "I am *not* using
`the argument from authority'", but was "arguing *against*
Darwinist's `argument from authority'":
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "Evolution" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 98 06:47:30 +0800
Subject: Re: Argument from authority? (was DIFFICULTIES OF
DARWINISM 1.4-)
BH>Thanks for the clarification. Now I must return to my original
>comment and say that your approach is not supported by the
>Phil Johnson quote. Phil is saying that the argument is
>unavoidable on account of the weakness of the evidence.
>Phil is not supporting the use of the argument from authority
>by creationists or anyone else. Remember, this is one of those
>things that is supposed to set off one's baloney detector ;-).
For the umpteenth time-I am *not* using "the argument from
authority"!! I am arguing *against* Darwinist's "argument from
authority"!!!! Really Brian-how many times do I have to say it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
5. And finally in the same post of 10 March, I repeated once again
that "I am *not* using an `an argument from authority'" but was
"counter-acting Darwinists' argument from authority!":
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "Evolution" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 98 06:47:30 +0800
Subject: Re: Argument from authority? (was DIFFICULTIES OF
DARWINISM 1.4-)
BH>Hmmmm... Using an argument from authority to support the use
>of an argument from authority? Buweeeeeeeeeeeep, there goes
>my detector ;-).
Maybe you are triggering it off yourself!! ;-) For the last time-
I am *not* using an "an argument from authority". I am counter-acting
Darwinists' argument from authority! Please acknowledge this so we can
move on.
Any further claims by you that I am using an argument from
authority will just be deleted without comment, as just wasting
mine, yours and everybody's valuable time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it difficult to believe that despite all this clarification
by me, a man of your intelligence can still claim to be "confused" by
my position. It isn't a difficult concept:
1. Early on I agreed with you that I was using an argument from
authority;
2. Then later I realised that I wasn't using an argument from
authority, but was really countering the Darwinists' argument from
authority.
Because I cannot see how you could possibly be "confused" over this,
I assume in view of my past experience debating with you that this
this is just another example of a disappointing (and indeed
disturbing) pattern in your posts to me, to keep repeating the same
question over and over again in different guises, while ignoring my
answers, presumably in the hope that you will trap me in a verbal slip
and score a cheap victory.
If so, it doesn't reflect any credit on either you or your evolutionary
position.
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------