dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/12/85)
> [Michael Ward] > Open letter to Paul DuBois > > Once again the issue of what Scientific Creationism is has arisen. > In a recent, very long, posting you admitted that you have been > challenged "often" to state your position, and have failed to > do so. You neglected to state - perhaps you forgot - that you > promised to make such a statement. In the past several months > you have said that such a statement was not posted because of > time constraints. No, I haven't forgotten. Yes, I did promise. Yes, I haven't kept my promise yet. I will. Let me warm your heart (I do not say this sarcastically): I find my task more difficult than I expected! (I'll bet no one expected me to say that.) > > Since you have time enough to post well-researched articles rebutting > the views of scientists, you should also have the time to tell > us just what it is that you beleive. (i) Most of the research was already done before the articles I replied to were even posted. Just part of my reading. (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. > Since you are the only creationist I have read who displays even > a shred of intelligence, integrity, and ability to reason (and, > in my opinion, you show a quite a bit of these), I am eager to > read what it is that you feel you can defend. I understand your impatience, but I'm not going to make arguments for things when I'm not sure I accept the explanations myself. > Please, Paul, let us know what it is that you beleive. You did > promise. Yes, I did. I haven't forgotten. P.S. I'm glad to see you back in the group. I noticed your absence - I hope it wasn't caused by disgust with my silence! -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but | the honor of kings is to search out a matter" | Proverbs 25:2
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/13/85)
I must confess that I'm somewhat confused. Here are two quotes from recent contributions made by Paul DuBois: > (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. > > -- > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | >> [Isaac Dimitrovsky] >> To the creationists on this net - come on, people! I can understand your >> not posting detailed explanations of exactly what, besides the wrongness >> of evolution, creationists believe. After all, it takes time to organize >> your thoughts, do research, etc. However, ten days ago (Feb 28), Bill >> Jefferys took the trouble to post the material quoted below, which is >> apparently a statement which all applicants to the CRS must subscribe to. >> At that time, he asked the creationists on the net whether they would be >> willing to sign this statement, and, if not, what parts of the statement >> they would disagree with. It certainly doesn't seem like too much trouble >> to read an eighteen line statement and give your comments on it. If you >> did so, some of the discussion in this group might take place in a bit >> less of a vacuum. However, to date the only response I've seen has been >> the one from Karen Gardner (who agreed with it completely). So, I close >> with a plea to the big guns of creationism in this group to let us hear >> what you have to say. Ray? Paul? Ken? Are you out there? > >I'd sign it. > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | 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.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/13/85)
> I must confess that I'm somewhat confused. Here are two quotes from > recent contributions made by Paul DuBois: > > > (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. > > > > ... > > > > >I'd sign it. > > > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | > > 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. 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. What > clear in my mind How > unclear in my mind -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but | the honor of kings is to search out a matter" | Proverbs 25:2