>From: "Michael Roberts" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Is this ethical of Pennock? I dont think so. Surely a critic can make enough
> criticisms of ID without resorting to this type of tactic?
I'll not comment on Pennock's actions until I know more of the story from
However, to provide a bit of balance it might be appropriate to look at a
sample of Dembski's strategy as well. Here is an excerpt from his book,
Intelligent Design (IVP, 1999):
"Itıs for failing to take Occamıs razor seriously that the Darwinian
establishment despises theistic evolution. Not to put too fine a point on
it, the Darwinian establishment views theistic evolution as a weak-kneed
sycophant that desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a
full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through
to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on
earth has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of an
afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate
meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them
contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists." p. 112.
...to which I'm inclined to reply: "Not to put too fine a point on it."?
Given that a typical dictionary definition of sycophant is a self-seeking,
servile flatterer; a fawning parasite, I can scarcely imagine needing to
resort to criticism any more caustic than that.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 10:27:49 EST