Chris Weimer

I forgive you.

:wave:

Jeffrey Gibson

At the risk of being called "tone deaf" and unable to read plain English as Toto has done on more than one occasion, I think that this little gem from Henry Morris qualifies as a "cite":

I also find Morris going on to state (cf. pp. 27-28) something that --with Earl's recent notice that he has no intention of submitting his article to peer reviewed journals "Since the odds are that any Journal will simply toss it", his other frequently made remarks about how he doesn't expect to get traction from "academia" because of how their close mindedness will not let them honestly entertain his ideas, and the remarks of others about how mythicists who hope for or who already have have faculty positions are afraid to say what they truly believe, in mind -- set some bells ringing:

Quote:

It may be true that not many anti-evolutionists are vocal about their convictions, whatever the reasons for this may be. But there are many of them. One reason for the apparent dearth of anti-evolutionary sentiment [in the "scientific" journals and from "academic" presses"] is that the major scientific publishing houses and periodicals are completely and exclusively under the control of leaders who are evolutionists. If anyone questions this, let him try to get a serious scientific article or book published refuting evolution! Or even a Letter to the Editor! The only outlet for such literature seems to be through conservative or private media. Similarly, it is almost an impossibility for a convinced creationist to obtain or to retain an influential position on a university faculty in the various disciplines now dominated by the evolution concept, such as anthropology, geology, biology, psychology, and psychiatry. The writer has known some men personally, and has heard of others, who were refused graduate degrees in geology, for example, primarily on the basis of their rejection of Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolutionism. The university scientists who reject evolution referred to in the foregoing are obviously, therefore, mostly in the physical sciences - chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, etc. Most of the biologists, geologists, and psychologists who reject evolution are working in private industry or in governmental positions.

I think you'll hear the bells, too, as soon as you substitute ""mythicist" for "creationist" and "historicist" for "evolutionists/evolution", and "New Testament studies" for "anthropology, geology, biology, psychology, and psychiatry".

Then again, since, as Toto notes, I'm tone deaf, I'm probably fooling myself into thinking that there are any bells to hear.

Jeffrey

Toto

This is not the particular quote that Solitary Man claimed was made by creationists. This is a completely different point, one that has been hammered to death. I will find the latest thread and merge this.

Toto

OK - Jeffrey may read through this thread, which was intended to be the end of all the inflammatory and useless comparisons to creationism, to his heart's delight. Anyone with anything better to do can ignore the whole thing.

Jeffrey Gibson

Oh, I think Morris is saying "petty, petty" to Huxley's notice, don't you?

If you mean what I note using the longer quote from Morris, yes it is a different point. But I though I made it clear that it was.

With, I trust, the result being the recognition that the claim that creationists and mythicists use the same (or a very similar) explanation for why it they don't get published in peer reviewed periodicals and academic presses (which is the [second} point I noted) is true, yes?

Can you really deny that on that score, and that score only, Earl and creationists say essentially the same thing?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Strange. I don't see how pointing out a (demonstrable and demonstrated) fact is either inflammatory or useless.

But then again, we obviously work from different standards not only on what is "inflammatory" and "useless", but on what is a "fact", especially when the topic is the validity of Earl's claims about what causes (or would cause) "historicists" to reject (publishing) his thesis.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

You don't see how being compared to creationists might inflame?

You don't understand that an analogy is neither an argument nor an explanation and, therefore, useless as either?

I question how much thought you have put into it and I doubt you bothered to even glance at the thread.

As I already said above:

Toto

No I don't.

...
RTFA