Au revoir
Phillip E Johnson
I am glad to have given you all so much entertainment. I have
answered some questions publicly, and others by private email.
Now here is a general comment before I return full-time to
grading law school exams:
The accusatory style of many of the responses deserves
comment. This "you are a fool and a liar" style of argument is
unfortunately typical of Darwinian rhetoric, even at the higher
levels. My Berkeley colleague Tom Jukes writes this way all the
time, and Steve Gould's review of *Darwin on Trial* for
Scientific American is a more sophisticated version of the same
thing. This works perfectly well within the community of belief,
where just about any attack on an enemy is applauded
uncritically, but, to persons who know that Darwinism has its
scientific and philosophical difficulties, it looks like mere
bluster. It can also be turned against you. (Gould's review
gave my book a big boost, for reasons explained in the "epilogue"
to the new edition.) Think of the deplorable qualities that you
attribute to those "fundamentalists" whom you despise so much:
dogmatism, intolerance, and so on. When would-be defenders of
science display those very qualities -- and then congratulate
themselves for their "success" in debate -- it is apparent that
they cannot see themselves as others see them.
I have answered some of the better questions as
straitforwardly as I can. If you don't like the answers, well --
Merry Christmas!
Paul Farrar
paul farrar
regular lurker, t.o wolfpack or tree-full of howler monkeys
not an official spokesman
scharle
Once again, we see that Johnson has nothing positive to say about
anyone or anything. He must sarcastically express his belief that
"all" of us have been entertained by him. Why enumerate -- you can
all read the deepness of his negativism.
Even his "Merry Christmas" is a bitter one.
--
Tom Scharle |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |sch...@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
William H. Jefferys
Drop in, drop a few bombs, and then retreat when
they fizzle. Typical Creationist behavior, we've
seen it hundreds of times.
Bill
----
In article <2f7klt$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Phillip E Johnson <phil...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
#
#I am glad to have given you all so much entertainment. I have
#answered some questions publicly, and others by private email.
#Now here is a general comment before I return full-time to
#grading law school exams:
#
# The accusatory style of many of the responses deserves
#comment. This "you are a fool and a liar" style of argument is
#unfortunately typical of Darwinian rhetoric, even at the higher
#levels. My Berkeley colleague Tom Jukes writes this way all the
#time, and Steve Gould's review of *Darwin on Trial* for
#Scientific American is a more sophisticated version of the same
#thing. This works perfectly well within the community of belief,
#where just about any attack on an enemy is applauded
#uncritically, but, to persons who know that Darwinism has its
#scientific and philosophical difficulties, it looks like mere
#bluster. It can also be turned against you. (Gould's review
#gave my book a big boost, for reasons explained in the "epilogue"
#to the new edition.) Think of the deplorable qualities that you
#attribute to those "fundamentalists" whom you despise so much:
#dogmatism, intolerance, and so on. When would-be defenders of
#science display those very qualities -- and then congratulate
#themselves for their "success" in debate -- it is apparent that
#they cannot see themselves as others see them.
#
#I have answered some of the better questions as
#straitforwardly as I can. If you don't like the answers, well --
#
#Merry Christmas!
#
Jeff Lowder
comments about some of the posts to him on this newsgroup. You guys have
been unnecesarily rude to him when he was not rude to you. I think he
was sincere when he said "Merry Christmas". Christians would call that
turning the other cheek. You're not going to convince anybody by acting
like assholes, so you might as well start treating people with respect,
even if you disagree with them. (Maybe more!)
Jeff Lowder <agno...@u.washington.edu>
----------
WARNING: Netnews reading is a solitary and sedentary pursuit, and
those who do so are cautioned that the Net should be used as an integral
part of a well-rounded life, including a daily regimen of rigorous
physical exercise, rewarding relationships, and a sensible low-fat diet.
The Net should not be used as a substitute or an excuse.
[Johnson's remarks deleted]
Tim Ikeda
phil...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Phillip E Johnson) wrote:
> The accusatory style of many of the responses deserves
> comment. This "you are a fool and a liar" style of argument is
> unfortunately typical of Darwinian rhetoric, even at the higher
> levels.
"Darwinian rhetoric"? Is this yet another backhanded, smearing,
ad hominem catchphrase we've come to love from the person who
brought us the one-lined, sarcastic innuendo? Sorry, Phillip,
if some of the acerbic responses were less subtle than your own.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
ti...@mendel.berkeley.edu
Wade Hines
>I don't agree with Johnson on evolution, but I have to agree with his
>comments about some of the posts to him on this newsgroup. You guys have
>been unnecesarily rude to him when he was not rude to you. I think he
>was sincere when he said "Merry Christmas". Christians would call that
>turning the other cheek. You're not going to convince anybody by acting
>like assholes, so you might as well start treating people with respect,
>even if you disagree with them. (Maybe more!)
Speaking of turned cheeks, the view I got was of a primary blastular
invagination. And that wasn't just in parting (or through the part in
his cheeks). The man came, he shat and broke wind on a few questions
and left before anything significant exchange could be had.
If we mooned him back, it was just our recognizing his turned cheek for
what it was.
--Wade
Thomas Kettenring
> The accusatory style of many of the responses deserves
>comment. This "you are a fool and a liar" style of argument is
>unfortunately typical of Darwinian rhetoric, even at the higher
>levels.
Hm. If someone would call me a liar, and if he were wrong, I'd
try and refute it. Whining is only necessary if there is no
real argument one can use.
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Consequent (adj). Another word for "pig-headed".
Matthew P Wiener
> The accusatory style of many of the responses deserves comment.
>This "you are a fool and a liar" style of argument is unfortunately
>typical of Darwinian rhetoric, even at the higher levels.
Well yes. That's because the anti-Darwinians _are_ fools and liars.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Andy Peters
: I don't agree with Johnson on evolution, but I have to agree with his
: been unnecesarily rude to him when he was not rude to you. I think he
: was sincere when he said "Merry Christmas". Christians would call that
: turning the other cheek. You're not going to convince anybody by acting
: like assholes, so you might as well start treating people with respect,
: even if you disagree with them. (Maybe more!)
Naaah. Johnson's an asshole, and a condescending asshole at that.
Those of us who were around for his first appearance on t.o. quickly
came to the realization that he's also a condescending asshole who
runs away when confronted with anything resembling science. Did you
notice he claims to have answered "some of the better arguments"
against him - and, I will admit, he did respond more this time than
any other time he's appeared here - but that those responses were all
to questions dealing with the *legality* of teaching "design," or the
*definition* of science, or other such, frankly insubstantial and
non-threatening (to him) stuff. His responses to actual evidence?
Non-existent.
He's an asshole.
: Jeff Lowder <agno...@u.washington.edu>
--
--Andy (adpe...@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu)
"Zen Tacos: The not-one taco to have
when you're having more than not-two"
Mex-Econo Restaurant, Kitty Hawk, NC
Seth J. Bradley
>any other time he's appeared here - but that those responses were all
>to questions dealing with the *legality* of teaching "design," or the
Not only that, but I plan to show that his legal arguments are equally
flawed. My father has as strong legal credentials as does Johnson
(IMO), and I mailed him that whole thread. I should be posting his
comments next week, hopefully, and I'll e-mail them to Dr. Johnson as
well.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SSD-CT
Internet: sbra...@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
Mark Isaak
> The accusatory style of many of the responses deserves
>comment. This "you are a fool and a liar" style of argument is
>unfortunately typical of Darwinian rhetoric,
I gather you have never read anything from the ICR, then.
Besides, I didn't notice anyone saying "you are a fool and a liar";
I saw several people say, "The evidence indicates you are a fool
and a liar," and then back that up with evidence. If you can't
show flaws in their evidence (I didn't see any myself), then I
must agree with their conclusions.
--
Mark Isaak "There lives more faith in honest doubt,
is...@aurora.com Believe me, than in half the creeds." - Tennyson
Eric Sieferman
Jeff Lowder <agno...@stein2.u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I don't agree with Johnson on evolution, but I have to agree with his
>comments about some of the posts to him on this newsgroup. You guys have
>been unnecesarily rude to him when he was not rude to you.
I began reading t.o about the time of the last foray by Prof. Johnson into
this group. If you consider refusing to answer direct questions,
impugning the motives and intelligence of opponents, and perpetration of
an amazing number of rhetorical tricks to be "rude" behavior in the course
of a discussion, then Prof. Johnson was indeed rude in the extreme. His
supercilious attitude in the most recent posting indicates that nothing
has changed. Not surprisingly, some experienced t.o posters responded to
him in kind.
>I think he
>was sincere when he said "Merry Christmas". Christians would call that
>turning the other cheek. You're not going to convince anybody by acting
>like assholes, so you might as well start treating people with respect,
>even if you disagree with them. (Maybe more!)
A number of people welcomed the return of PJ with several polite, but
direct, questions which he left unanswered after his last visit here.
That sounds like "turning the other cheek" to me. It also sounds like
pissing up a rope.