[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:33:04 +0000 (GMT)

Martin S
I do try not to exhibit certainty -- it is such a dangerous practise -- but I 
do fail from time to time. In this instance I was relying upon comment I've 
seen in other areas which I judged to be reliable and you have found an error 
in my judgement. I've seen Wise mentioned in creationist context but I can't 
recall whether I've actually read him on any subject. You judge correctly that 
I am not well read in creationist literature -- it just gets so frustrating 
reading over and over the same dissertations you've read convincingly debunked 
elsewhere in concert with the fact that there are some very different positions 
espoused in the creationist camp.
However I am interested in reading his definition of kinds. I guess if I had 
known of the term 'baraminology' I would most cetainly have typed it int that 
little box and pressed 'Go'. I will also check those two references you've 
given and the one involving the Smithsonian if you provide it to me.
You have told us -- I think me -- previously if memory serves me, of Dembski's 
difficulties with a scholarly journal and I'd venture the opinion -- on your 
assertion -- that he was perhaps unfairly treated. But in fairness, would a 
religious/creationist/evangelical publication be likely to publish an article 
expressing a contrary view on say, The Resurrection, or Lazarus' resurrection, 
or walking on water, regardless of the author's impeccable scientific 
Its 04h30 and I have an appointment with my dentist this afternoon -- SLEEP!
Paul D
PS I thought your comment on No Subject amusing. At least I think so -- all 
those negatives get me confused!

----- Original Message ----
From: Martin G. Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 19 September, 2007 5:41:00 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution

On Sep 19, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Paul Deema wrote:

Since no creationist to the best of my knowledge, has ever given a definition 
of 'kind', I doubt that you would break the mould but we live in hope. Are you 
prepared to offer such a definition?

I suppose that's a perennial problem, since everything asserted must be to best 
of our knowledge (how can it exceed our knowledge, after all?).  If one's 
knowledge is broad-based and well-read in the top creationist literature, that 
observation would have some inductive weight. But I suspect this is not the 
case for you, Paul, since the single highest profile creationist is the late 
Stephen Jay Gould's assistant, Dr. Kurt Wise, and Dr. Wise has developed an 
entire locus of creationist science concerning the definition of kinds 
(baraminology). So, I'm afraid that your off-the-cuff criticism could have been 
better researched with little effort.


P.S.  Note the circularity in the "Criticism" section in the Wikipedia article 
on baraminology -- e.g., that no articles concerning the topic appear in 
scientifically peer-reviewed journals. How quaint, considering how the 
scientific community savaged a pro-evolutionist editor for publishing Steve 
Dembski's paper on Intelligent Design in a Smithsonian-affiliated scholarly 
journal -- savaged even though the paper had been unanimously approved by the 
journal's entire submission review committee (all evolutionists). The 
scandalous conduct of the Smithsonian in the aftermath of the publication made 
it abundantly clear that there is indeed a near-total blackout being enforced. 
If you're unaware of this situation, I'll provide links to illuminate the 
matter further. The controversy made it into the mainstream media -- this isn't 
some vague conspiracy theory over an obscure incident, this became big news 
with a high profile.

Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Other related posts: