From: Josh Bembenek (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 13 2003 - 10:35:46 EDT
Before I read the PCSF article, I should directly mention that I do not
charge you personally with this sort of double speak, yet I collectively
find that the rhetoric of this listserve appears to be a kind of double
speak in terms of Keith Miller's comments in light of the overall position
that you outline. Indeed this response was directed toward Keith and I feel
that his comments were using the "ignorance trump" excessively, not
yourself. Please forgive any misdirected attacks at yourself.
>From: "Howard J. Van Till" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: Josh Bembenek <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: Re: "Design up to Scratch?"
>Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 07:39:15 -0400
> >From: "Josh Bembenek" <email@example.com>
> > Yet at the same time, Van Till has written explicitly that we should
> > wait patiently for science to uncover the unknown physical laws that
> > enable us to understand more completely how evolutionary processes
> > biological systems without God's constant "tinkering" (i.e. non-embodied
> > form-conferring interventive action.) Here we have a double-speak, on
> > hand our efforts to view (excuse the sloppy label) Theistic Evolution as
> > true and reliable theory partly involve future discovery of relevant
> > physical laws/ processes that science will uncover. On the other hand,
> > can dismiss arguments about the ability of natural systems operating
> > as inept for creating biological complexity because we cannot perform
> > calculations and we don't know all the relevant factors involved, nor
> > we be able to. Thus we are perfectly fit snuggly into our ignorance.
> > ignorance thus equally protects our inability to rigourously explain the
> > ability of laws to produce biological systems while simultaneously
> > preventing anyone from trying to argue that they are insufficient.
> > Beautifully convenient, the ignorance trump card has become. In the
> > matter how much we understand of the universe, there will be an unknown
> > perhaps infinite degree of ignorance that we can appeal to for support
> > our particular theory, even more wonderfully convenient!!
>Josh, I dislike double-speak as much as you do, and I do my best to avoid
>it. Nonetheless, I presume that there is room for improvement. So, help me
>out here. Please re-read my essay "Is the Creation a 'Right Stuff'
>Universe?" in the December, 2002, issue of PSCF and find specific instances
>in which I employ the kind of double-speak to which you refer in the above
>Howard Van Till
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 13 2003 - 10:36:12 EDT