Allen Roy wrote:
> Van Till said this of Dembski's book --=20
> "lots of smoke (obfuscation by introducing
> new and technical terminology ad infinitum; using familiar words in =
> and rapidly changing ways) and mirrors (making things seem different =
> what they are), making the conclusions highly incredible."
> A friend of mine said:=20
> "I wonder if this guy [Van Till] thinks the Pythagorean Theorem is smoke =
> and mirrors. I
> wonder if he's ever heard of the word "axiom" or "definition" or =
> Doesn't sound like it. The title of the book is in reference to a
> collection of mathematical THEOREMS (proven in isolation from Dembski by
> other mathematicians with no interest in creation and evolution), not
> wishful confusing conjectures that this man is probably more use to. =
> would be much more engaging would be if this man could dismantle =
> mathematical work, instead of trying to tarnish its effectiveness by
> misrepresenting it as a confusing religious or philosophical work."
> I have now been informed that "Howard made some general criticisms of a =
> book" and that my friend "did not respond to those criticisms but only =
> made snide remarks about the critic."
> It appears to me that Van Till's "criticism" of Dembski only consists of =
> snide remarks about the logical and mathematical abilities of Dembski. =
> My friend addressed Van Till's "criticism" by pointing out that Van Till =
> would be more gainfully employed in actually dismantling Dembski's =
> mathematical work rather than in willful misrepresentation of it. Van =
> Till's qualifications should be apparent in his statements and not by =
> the number of letters attached to his name.
Howard's criticisms were brief & general but of Dembski's arguments, not
of Dembski himself. If your anonymous friend had said that these criticisms
were too brief & general to be useful, OK. Instead he insinuated that the
critic didn't know the meaning of basic math terms.
Why pursue this at length? Simply to discourage anonymous and/or ad
hominem material. Your post contained both.
I note also that you have decided that Howard's statements were not only
"misrepresentation" but "willful misrepresentation." Attributing malice to a
person without definite evidence of it is also wrong.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 13:06:56 EDT