In a message dated 10/10/2000 3:20:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
> CC>Further, since you don't even try to persuade people that your version
> >might be true, the dogmatic, theistic-creationist ID folks, like Phillip
> >Johnson and Stephen Jones,
>
> Webster's dictionary defines "dogmatic" as:
>
> "1 : characterized by or given to the use of dogmatism"
> (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dogmatic
>
> and "dogmatism" as:
>
> 1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or
> arrogant 2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently
> examined premises".
> (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dogmatism)
>
> Now leaving aside Chris' personal judgment on whether Johnson and I are
> "arrogant", both Johnson and I are quite prepared to provide reasons that
> warrant out opinions and we are both have "examined" and are prepared to
> examine any time our "premises".
>
As several reviewers including Lamoureux et al have shown, Philip Johnson's
understanding of evolution seems to be quite limited. Drawing conclusions
about evolution based on false premises or limited understanding of its
foundations is likely going to lead to a dogmatic viewpoint. Johnson's
confusion of ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism comes to
mind as the latter. I doubt that you can speak for Johnson though. His
responses to Lamoureux place some doubt on your assertions imho.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 00:45:13 EDT