So when they are wrong, factually wrong, I am not to point it out because
it is unchristian? I have sent messages to Phil on the rodent issue, I
have sent messages through his friends who have assured me that they
contacted him about the 'rodents gave rise to whales' and 'rodents gave
rise to bats' error he makes. He claims it is a joke and doesn't see any
reason to change. I don't see the humor.
>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.
>
Actually I have tried but they don't like what I say.
>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.
You obviously haven't been to very many scientific symposia on
controversial topics. They can get rather raucous at times. I have seen
leading geophysicists yelling at each other in the question and answer
period. There is no 'friendly debate with the aim of helping each other'
in some of those situations.
>
>But this is not just "science". This is also *Christian apologetics*.
So are we to allow our children to be taught erroneous things because this
is *Christian apologetics*?
>
>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.
Wait a minute. I do offer an alternative when I criticize the competing
views. That IS constructive.
>
>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.
Steven, as I pointed out to you before, Stanley doesn't say what you think
he does. I quote from JOHNSON"S Darwin on Trial, p. 51. Stanley clearly
says that a rodent COULDN"T give rise to a bat or a whale which is exactly
my contention.
He wrote:
"A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike
form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but NOT
TO A BAT OR A WHALE!" p. 51 emphasis mine.
So, please correct yourself in your claim that Stanley supports Johnson's
position. He doesn't!
>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.
As I said, I have sent messages directly and through intermediaries. No
effect. So I have tried to correct him, contra your claim.
>
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm