Re: Science and Spirit (was Re: Giberson & Yerxa vs Numbers #2)

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Sun Jan 04 2004 - 13:35:13 EST

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:46:21 -0000 "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> I looked this up on Science and Spirit website. Giberson is simply
> false on
> the Calvin quote. I would have thought by now anyone moderately
> familiar on
> Science and religion wouldn't repeat it.
> The Sedgwick is true but out of context (perhaps Giberson
> learnt how to give quotations from ICR and AIG?) Sedgwick was 75
> when he
> wrote that and in a letter to Darwin in 1859 signed off as "a son of
> a
> monkey"!! Further Sedgwick was a leading geologist and one of the
> most
> significant in sorting out the Lower Palaeozoic i.e. camrian to
> Devonian.
> Giberson could equally well have given a snippet from Lord Kelvin,
> Joule and
> the President of the Royal Society in 1860.
>
>
> George will comment on Luther but if true then give Luther a
> chance.
> Copernicus only published in 1543 and died in 1543. This is probably
> from
> his Tabletalk which was written down by others.
> All in all Giberson seems pretty shoddy in his research. And I was
> about to
> buy his book!!!!
>
> Dare I ask? Is Giberson a scholar? If he is he is devoid on any
> understanding of a historical perspective. When a new scientific
> theory
> comes out it is never unanimously accepted. E.g my geology dept
> taught
> continental drift as the most likely view in 1966-8 even though
> most
> especially American geologists did not accept it at that point. We
> were
> taught others did not accept it, but were taught to question.
>
> The trouble is that this type of nonsense is repeated ad nauseam and
> few
> bother to check it.
>
> Michael
>
> PS I cant dig up Marston's webbook either I shall ring and see
> what's
> happened.
>
Michael,
You seem to be forgetting a fundamental principle: any stick is good
enough to belabor the benighted. I ran across a "quotation" on one web
site, "Credo ut absurdum." This is even ridiculous Latin. At least the
more common "credo quia absurdum est" is grammatical, even though not
found in Tertullian's corpus. But I've heard the latter from both an
erudite philosophy professor and a history professor, as well as found it
in books from academic presses and in respectable journals. Your desire
to quote exactly and in context puts you in the minority.
Dave
Received on Sun Jan 4 14:16:48 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 04 2004 - 14:16:49 EST