RE: Johnson on Bible Answer Man

From: Alexanian, Moorad (
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 21:31:26 EST

  • Next message: Jim Armstrong: "Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man"

    I am not defending PJ’s personal interactions with others. My statement refers to his scientific/philosophical view that correctly criticizes the statement of evolutionists that macroevolution is a fact rather than a scientific assumption. As a Christian, I please God and not my ego when discussing scientific issues but I will not be deterred from calling a spade a spade. Moorad

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Michael Roberts []
            Sent: Sat 3/15/2003 2:09 PM
            To: Alexanian, Moorad; Jim Armstrong;
            Subject: Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
            Come on, Alexanian. You must be familiar with the New Testament teaching on love. PJ has clearly failed to follow that in regard to Ken Miller and PJ's comments about him are plain nasty and thoroughly unchristian. However they are not quite as bad as AIG's hateful and dishonest tract "Frauds used to support evolution" which I acquired at an AIG meeting in Preston last night when Ken Ham was described as an eminent scientist. Both of these approaches are plain immoral in that they falsely condemn others. With that inmind it matters not one whit whether PJ is right about naturalism (actually he is plain wrong) or whether Kettlewell got it wrong over the peppered moth (he did).
            I do thing so called Christian opponents of evolution should stop slandering those with whom they disagree AND ALSO make sure that their own work is faultless and cannot be charge d with being fraudulent (Paluxy, Woodamarappe (AKA ??) on faulty age dates, circular arguments on the geol column, bombardier, fossil conifer forests in the Precambrian of the Grand Canyon etc tc etc etc .
            Instead of worrying whether people keep the fourth commandment , how about the ninth and the second which is based on an Egyptian view of a flat earth. (A consistent YEC will also be a flat-earther -no misreading OT texts is allowed, wont commit adultery and wont bear false witness)
            It would be a good idea if all Christians aimed to follow basic Christian morality before trying to win an intellectual argument

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
                    To: Jim Armstrong <> ;
                    Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:35 PM
                    Subject: RE: Johnson on Bible Answer Man

                    Every scientist who has ever published a paper that is critical to other's work or is presenting a new idea knows full well that the writing of the paper is done as if one were presenting a brief before the US Superior Court. My daughter, who is not a physician, is a practicing lawyer but knows enough about medicine to properly depose physicians. I think this criticism of PJ is unwarranted. PJ has clearly brought to the fore the philosophical assumptions involved in evolutionary theory that go beyond science. I believe that is proper philosophy of science, if you like. Moorad

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Jim Armstrong []
                            Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:51 AM
                            Subject: Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
                            Of course PJ is a Professor or Law, not a scientist. His arguments flow from a specific agenda and seem more those of the courtroom, using facts in selective ways in order to create doubt. I think that is evident in what he calls his "Wedge strategy". He describes his agenda pretty well at
                            I presume this is discussed as well in his recent book "Wedge of Truth".

                                    Jim Armstrong wrote:

                                            From PJ's own web site it looks like the latest on the subject is 1995

                                    Even more disturbing is that PJ seems to know Kenneth Miller
                                    fairly well as he debated him in 1996. Why he would basically
                                    call him something just short of a seditionist is beyond me.
                                    [PJs comments on Ken were the original reason for this post.]
                                    by Grace along indeed, we proceed,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 21:31:59 EST