On Wed, 27 May 1998 21:50:01 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>SJ>For the record, unless I indicate otherwise, when I say that Glenn
>>destructively criticises Christian apologists, I mean he destructively
>>criticises their *positions*, not their persons.
GM>We might actually be making progress here. I would absolutely plead guilty
>to this. In fact I would proudly plead guilty.
Thanks for being so frank. But brazening it out by "proudly plead guilty"
won't work. It just *cannot* be Christian to destructively criticise the positions
of leading Christian apologists like Phil Johnson and Hugh Ross. It can be
Christian to *constructively* criticise the positions of these leading apologists.
But on your own admission, this is *not* what you do. Your criticism is
*destructive* not constructive. Your aim is to *destroy* their positions, not just
correct them in love.
GM>In the marketplace of ideas, an idea survives only if it can stand up to
>criticism. Ideas that are no good or are erroneous must be criticised.
>Ideas that are correct, can't be destroyed. The concept a few years ago
>about cold fusion was destroyed by the criticism of other scientists. The
>idea was not strong enough, and didn't have the observational support to
>withstand the criticism. On the other hand, the concept of high
>temperature superconductivity did survive criticism and is a flourishing
>area of research. This is how science works.
It might be OK in "science" to destructively criticise other scientist's
ideas, but even that is doubtful. One would normally expect scientists
to engage in friendly debate, with the aim of mutually helping each
other arrive at the truth.
But this is not just "science". This is also *Christian apologetics*. You
often say that Christians are to do better than non-Christians. Well your
destructive criticism of Christian apologists that you are so "proud" of is
*worse* than what most non-Christian scientists do!
GM>And when Christians deal in science they MUST play by the rules of science.
>We can't allow weak hypotheses in our apologetics. If Christian apologists
>are unable or unwilling to present ideas that can't be falsified by the
>simplest observations, then their hypotheses need to be removed from the
>field of play so that we can finally get a solution for the
>Scripture/Science issues. In other words Stephen, if the ideas you think I
>am destroying were any good, I wouldn't be able to destroy them. period.
I have no problem with you *constructively* criticising Christian apologists
scientific claims. My problem is the *way* you do it, by "destroying" rather
than building up.
And it is not just Christian apologists major claims that you attack. You scrape
the bottom of the barrel to pick on the tiniest alleged scientific inexactitudes,
like Johnson saying that bats came from a "rodent", ignoring the fact that
Johnson is only echoing what evolutionists like Steven Stanley have said.
Your aim is not to correct Johnson but to discredit him. The reason is not
hard to see-you try to discredit *any* Christian apologist who opposes
evolution.
And what's more, you don't even abide by your own rules. Your own 5.5
mya Noah/Mediterranean theory is a weaker hypothesis than any that
Ross or Johnson put up. But you cling to it, despite it being against the
evidence of both science and theology. If you succeeded in discrediting
Johnson and Ross, you would have nothing to put in their place.
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------