>If one tells what he thinks is the *truth*, yet he is wrong, then that is
only a
>*mistake*. I have observed that TE/ECs (and indeed evolutionists
>generally) are very quick to assume *moral* wrong (ie. a lie) of creationists
>rather than assuming only *intellectual* wrong (ie. a mistake).
this is a common problem even for myself. It's tough to believe someone can
delude themselves so completely. Therefore some of the creationists' actions
do look very much like lies. A few months ago I debated a creationist on
this list who defended the use of out-of-context quotes. They are not lies,
he contended, because the scientists quoted actually did say what they are
quoted as saying. I never could get him to understand that quoting
them--even accurately--out of context misrepresented their actual message
and that that practice was unethical at BEST.
> Not even
>*once* was a non-Pakistani employed by him. Yet he maintained
>indignantly that he was not prejudiced one way or the other. Needless to
>say he was eventually fired because his superiors judged that if he really
>believed that he was not prejudiced towards Pakistanis, and yet he always
>came down in favour of a Pakistani, then he must be totally unaware of his
>own biases and unsuitable as a manager.
excellent example!!!
>BTW if Loren is shocked at this conclusion, as a scientists he shouldn't be.
>The whole rationale for science demanding verification by repeatable
>experiment is that it has learned the hard way that individual scientists
(like
>other mere mortals) are not always aware of their biases.
explain why repeateable experiments that favor a naturalistic explanation
are repeatedly ignored by creationists.
>Here's a simple test. If Loren can give *one* example in life's history from
>(and including) "the formation of first life" where he has in fact come down
>in favour of God acting supernaturally, over against competing naturalistic
>evolutionary explanations, I invite him to post it. If Loren cites the
infusion
>of man's soul, that is not strictly speaking a competing naturalistic
>evolutionary explanation, so I would like to hear his *second* example!
I'd be curious to see this too. I want to see an experimental or field
observation of supernatuaral intervention. A REPEATABLE observation. The
soul thing is Platonistic clap-trap and I'm not interested in that either.
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb