padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/16/85)
Here are some quotes that I asked Paul to clarify: >> > (ii) I've already alluded to the notion that I do not definitely ascribe >> > to very much. In many cases I'm not sure that I accept ANY view, >> > either those of creationists or of evolutionists. (Technically, this >> > is known as suspension of judgment.) This ambivalence, unfortunately, >> > doesn't help me very much in formulating a definite statement of >> > (scientific) belief. But I don't wish to use that for an excuse - >> > it's just an explanation. >> > >> >> ... >> [concerning the CRS, creation theory statement..] >> > >> >I'd sign it. >> > >> >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | >> I made the observation that >> The first states that he definately does not ascribe to very much, >> while the second indicates unconditional agreement with the CRS. >> This seems to be self contradictory. Is there something that I'm >> overlooking? >> >> Padraig Houlahan. Prompting the following "clarification" >Sorry for the lack of specificity. There is no doubt that I believe >in creation. Of that, even I am sure. My ambivalence comes from >consideration of the proposed *mechanisms* of (get this) non-evolution. >A similar phenomenon sometimes occurs in the minds of evolutionists. >Evolution as an *occurrence* is accepted, but great trepidation arises >when the mechanisms through which it is supposed to have occurred are >to be specified. > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | This is just not good enough, unless your articles are just a facade and pretense at trying to engage in meaningful discussion, and, you are only paying lip-service to that ideal. The problem with the quotations is that they are self contradictory. When you say: >> > In many cases I'm not sure that I accept ANY view, >> > either those of creationists or of evolutionists. and then state you are willing to sign the CRS statement, then that is a contradiction in your position. It is not a problem in "lack of specificity". One of those statements has to be retracted. There are other serious problems in addition to the one just mentioned in your 'clarification'. You state >A similar phenomenon sometimes occurs in the minds of evolutionists. >Evolution as an *occurrence* is accepted, but great trepidation arises >when the mechanisms through which it is supposed to have occurred are >to be specified. First ,you were asked to clarify your statement, not those of evolutionists. Second, the issue at hand had nothing to do with mechanisms, it only dealt with your stated position (If an evolutionist jumped off a cliff, would you do the same?.) Introducing another topic in an attempt to distract attention from your apparently contradictory position, indicates a reluctance on your part to accept the outcome of sincere, meaningful discussion. If you want to discuss this then submit your comment for evaluation in a separate article. Padraig Houlahan.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (03/26/85)
Padraig, the only position you seem to state is the Paul DuBois can't state his position. Not a particularly interesting position.