More fiction from Stephen

From: Wesley R. Elsberry (welsberr@inia.cls.org)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:17:35 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "Re: Another ID argument"

    Among other fictions, there was this one:

    [...]

    SEJ>I suspect that what Wesley is really upset about is that Mike
    SEJ>Behe punctures his attempts to equate ID with YEC!

    [...]

    I've long held nuanced views of the diversity among
    creationists. If Stephen can produce a quote from me that
    *equates* YEC and IDC, I'll be happy to publicly retract and
    clarify my position. Until then, I will consider Stephen's
    claim here to be evidentially vacuous, as so many ID claims
    seem to be.

    [...]

    SEJ>Sooner or later it might sink in to Wesley (and others)
    SEJ>that the ID movement is a *scientific* movement, which is
    SEJ>concerned with demonstrating the empirical evidence for
    SEJ>the existence of intelligent cause in the history of life,
    SEJ>and not for who the cause Agent or agency was.

    [...]

    Yep, when the IDC's start publishing real scientific theories
    with real empirical research behind them, I'll realize that ID
    "is a scientific movement". This isn't a special burden for
    ID; many another avenue of scientific research has had to pony
    up some initial results before being generally accepted as
    *being* scientific. As for "sooner or later", judging by the
    effort that IDCs currently put into actual research making a
    positive case for ID, it looks like the timing will be "much,
    much later".

    [...]

    SEJ>Indeed, if Johnson denied membership of the ID movement to
    SEJ>Wells (on the grounds he had unorthodox views about Jesus
    SEJ>Christ), or to Mike Behe (on the grounds that he believed
    SEJ>in common ancestry), then Wesley would no doubt be among
    SEJ>the first to accuse Johnson of hypocrisy. The bottom line
    SEJ>is that it wouldn't matter what Johnson did. In the eyes
    SEJ>of Wesley and his ilk, Johnson would always be damned if
    SEJ>he did, and damned if he didn't!

    About this mindreading that Stephen attempts: Don't give up
    your day job, bucko. Stephen apparently doesn't have enough
    in the way of real argument to counter what I say, and thus
    has to resort to these pathetic little fantasies.

    The fact of the matter is that Johnson's complacency is no
    evidence for or against Johnson holding or denying any
    particular stance, despite Stephen's argument-by-assertion.

    Wesley



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 20:16:48 EDT