At 08:13 AM 10/05/02 -0700, Allen Roy wrote:
>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.
It shows here again, that difference of opinion often results in name
calling, without knowing the background of one's thoughts, even when
expressed by the writer. In this case it is extremely difficult. I do not
know Allen Roy's background, I do not know his friend's background, I only
know Van Till, and only because I had to study his ideas for the church.
Personally, I think, we should refrain on this forum from such statements,
unless we show why we say it. In this case it sounds very much like the
shouting we did as children: one shouts "no" and the other "yes" and the
first one repeats "no" to hear again "yes", ad infinitum. Sorry change
that to for a long time.
Unless we know more than what is shown, a discussion like this gets us nowhere.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 02:14:50 EDT