That's "Mr." Spock.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> Behalf Of Jay Willingham
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 4:42 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: deception in perception
> Yes, I have studied logic and its limitations, Dr. Spock.
> Logic must accept the existence of alternative explanations when there =
> is no dispositive empirical proof. How does one prove that the ancient =
> creatures classed as hominids were not merely men, or animals who failed =
> to compete with man? We have gone around and around about the =
> acceptable variation in the human genome.
> Logic is not the sine qua non of all theological truth. It is of the =
> scientific method. Logic includes the existence of mystery and the =
> unexplained by concluding that some things cannot be logically explained =
> within our frame of refernce. Logic in man's eyes is not the same as it =
> is in God's eyes. Yes, I have already quoted the Bible for that premise =
> in this line.
> You have dispositive proof of natural selection/microevolution which you =
> illogically allege is dispositive proof of macroevolution. As your =
> arguments are not without basis in empirical fact, your conclusions are =
> illogical when they categorically exclude alternative explanations.
> You are falling prey to the same tactic I have read being used against =
> you, unless I can point to specific courses in logic I have taken at the =
> post graduate level, you assume that my mind does not work logically.
> Logic is our desperate effort to understand our existence, some aspects =
> of which we will not understand this side of the veil, per, yes, another =
> Bible verse already cited.
> For instance, a philosophy course I took at Duke was on the structure of =
> aesthetics. There is a subject amenable to only a very "soft" =
> application of logic.
> I have also previously pointed out to you how in your website you make =
> educated guesses friendly to your pet hypothesis as to the cause of =
> various geologic features or parts of the fossil record and then =
> illogically conclude that those interpretations are proof positive of =
> your hypothesis.
> When I assert that isotope decay rates may not be constant and that =
> creation may have resulted in isotopes in various states of decay, the =
> response is, if God did not create something a scientific, logical =
> method can readily describe and and explain as truth then God is is =
> deceiving me and must be Satan. =20
> Your logical syllogism seems to say "God's mind conceived and created =
> the earth. My mind can understand all there is to know about the earth. =
> I can understand the mind of God."
> I do not believe that the mind of man can understand all there is to =
> know about the earth. =20
> Where does that leave faith and hope in things not seen? Yes, another =
> verse, hang it all.
> I am sure the old serpent fools me, too. I never said I was right and =
> you were wrong. What I did say was we are probably arguing about =
> endless genealogies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 22:47:17 EDT