Sometimes I reread our discussions and see some failure(s) on my part. That happened a while back as I reread some of our earlier discussions on evolution (which is a big reason I set that overall subject aside for quite a while).
The biggest failure that I saw was my tendency to dwell on our disagreements and ignore the common ground. I really don't want to be guilty of that from here on out. I KNOW that we agree on a lot. I know that even a lot of our disagreements aren't as big as they may appear.
I say all of that because I realize that most of our disagreement isn't on the specifics. They're rooted in philosophical (religious?) presuppositions that define how we interpret everything else. So, it's to be expected that we each see things completely differently and may find it hard to understand how the other can't see what we find so obvious.
I guess my response here is a really wordy way of saying a couple of things:
I've said all along that my intent isn't to prove God, or even disprove evolution. I do hope to show Christianity as a rational response to what we know and see around us. I hope to even try to get across to some why we interpret things the way we do.
Secondly, I can rationally understand your perspective, even if I wholly disagree with it and (of course) believe you're wrong. I get it. I think it's important that that's said.
I'll admit that this whole subject is a pretty small nit to pick, when his ideas are full of many other fat, juicy ticks.
Perhaps we will have some fun popping those ticks. :)
It's being used to demonstrate that this man is trying to give his ideas the appearance of acceptance and passing a certain amount of scrutiny, which is dishonest, or at the very least (in Dr. Morrow's words) disingenuous.
You see, I just don't get that out of it. If you read Behe's other stuff, he's pretty candid about the established scientific community's opinion on the matter. He's pretty vocal about the need for a paradigm shift before he's taken seriously. And I, personally, don't think he was trying to be dishonest to the judge.
As a matter of fact, the judge actually accused the ID group (Behe included) of trying to create a false duality that doesn't actually exist. Now, how could Behe be guilty of claiming a duality while also claiming that his work is peer reviewed to the effect that it is accepted science (by the scientists he claims are a duality against his theories)? That argument against him is self-contradictory.
Now, I'm definitely not Behe's bulldog. I think he has been and is doing a great job defending the "ticks" you mention. I figure he can take care of himself. And I'm not here to try to paint his detractors as anything one way or the other.
I just started looking into the accusations and found them to be a lot of bark with no teeth. Having the platform to do so, I thought it worthy to point that out.
(Plus, it got your lazy butt back on the keyboard and living up to your proper role as "thorn in my side". :D)
Another point to be made, I hope...
Sometimes I reread our discussions and see some failure(s) on my part. That happened a while back as I reread some of our earlier discussions on evolution (which is a big reason I set that overall subject aside for quite a while).
The biggest failure that I saw was my tendency to dwell on our disagreements and ignore the common ground. I really don't want to be guilty of that from here on out. I KNOW that we agree on a lot. I know that even a lot of our disagreements aren't as big as they may appear.
I say all of that because I realize that most of our disagreement isn't on the specifics. They're rooted in philosophical (religious?) presuppositions that define how we interpret everything else. So, it's to be expected that we each see things completely differently and may find it hard to understand how the other can't see what we find so obvious.
I guess my response here is a really wordy way of saying a couple of things:
I've said all along that my intent isn't to prove God, or even disprove evolution. I do hope to show Christianity as a rational response to what we know and see around us. I hope to even try to get across to some why we interpret things the way we do.
Secondly, I can rationally understand your perspective, even if I wholly disagree with it and (of course) believe you're wrong. I get it. I think it's important that that's said.
I'll admit that this whole subject is a pretty small nit to pick, when his ideas are full of many other fat, juicy ticks.
Perhaps we will have some fun popping those ticks. :)
It's being used to demonstrate that this man is trying to give his ideas the appearance of acceptance and passing a certain amount of scrutiny, which is dishonest, or at the very least (in Dr. Morrow's words) disingenuous.
You see, I just don't get that out of it. If you read Behe's other stuff, he's pretty candid about the established scientific community's opinion on the matter. He's pretty vocal about the need for a paradigm shift before he's taken seriously. And I, personally, don't think he was trying to be dishonest to the judge.
As a matter of fact, the judge actually accused the ID group (Behe included) of trying to create a false duality that doesn't actually exist. Now, how could Behe be guilty of claiming a duality while also claiming that his work is peer reviewed to the effect that it is accepted science (by the scientists he claims are a duality against his theories)? That argument against him is self-contradictory.
Now, I'm definitely not Behe's bulldog. I think he has been and is doing a great job defending the "ticks" you mention. I figure he can take care of himself. And I'm not here to try to paint his detractors as anything one way or the other.
I just started looking into the accusations and found them to be a lot of bark with no teeth. Having the platform to do so, I thought it worthy to point that out.
(Plus, it got your lazy butt back on the keyboard and living up to your proper role as "thorn in my side". :D)
Take care...