[Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas

[g. crabtree]

"...I understand how
> you both like to keep things vague so that you can change your story to 
> avoid
> criticism -- first it was an attack on all science, now a defense of 
> reasonable
> skepticism. But since this is a public forum it is important for folks 
> like me to
> point that out whenever possible!"

Thank you for taking your responsibilities (and yourself) so seriously. The 
way "folks like you" can read my posts and determine what I REALLY meant to 
say in two short sentences is nothing short of awe inspiring. I find your 
comment about how I "keep things vague so I can change to my  story to avoid 
criticism" interesting however. If your contention were correct wouldn't ya 
think the nastygrams I receive from the "folks like you" might be slightly 
less? Since I seem to draw a full measure of criticism no matter what I 
post, there just might be a flaw in your pet theory. Perhaps I prefer to 
keep things vague so that "folks like you" can follow up and tell the world 
what it is I actually intended to say there by sparing myself all that 
tedious typing and thinking, a task that you have made clear should be left 
up to "folks like you." Again, thank you for taking the time to provide your 
invaluable assistance in interpreting what it is I have to say.

g

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in 
Texas


> There is a difference between having "a modicum of skepticism for 
> scientists"
> and denying the theory of evolution, as Henry Morris does. The latter view
> has no intellectual merit. If it did, then Harkins or you would have 
> actually
> cited a peer-reviewed article from a reputable journal that rejected 
> evolution,
> instead of suggesting that you could do so if you had the time.
>
> The fact that NSA's accrediting agency was founded by Morris and that the
> agency is not recognized by Texas' higher education authorities, as Gier
> pointed out, is significant for this reason.
>
> Look, I know that you and Harkins have your beliefs and you don't like to 
> let
> things like facts and evidence get in the way of them. And I understand 
> how
> you both like to keep things vague so that you can change your story to 
> avoid
> criticism -- first it was an attack on all science, now a defense of 
> reasonable
> skepticism. But since this is a public forum it is important for folks 
> like me to
> point that out whenever possible!
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> I never cease to be amazed at what silly throw away post will set the 
> laying
> hens to squawking. My point was that a modicum of skepticism for 
> scientists
> was as appropriate as it would be for some Christian apologists. (It 
> should
> go without saying that secular philosophers and their enormous egos should
> be viewed skeptically 24/7.)
>
> On a separate note, could some conservative out there in the wings PLEASE
> chime in and "call me on the cr*p" I continually throw out. For the rest 
> of
> the readers to be deprived of the pearls of truth and knowledge that are 
> Mr.
> Campbell's contributions to this forum is cruel and doubtless detrimental 
> to
> the over-all health of the community. For the sake of all that is good and
> righteous, someone MUST set me straight so we may once again know the
> splendor and glory that is *Him*. Sadly, I am totally  inadequate to such 
> a
> Herculean task.
>
> g
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 6:39 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] NSA's accrediting agency is not recognized in Texas
>
>
>> Crabtree's comments and links are misleading. He notes 10 links. Suppose
>> there were 100 instances in which scientists fudged data. Should we
>> conclude
>> that ALL scientists fudge data or that SOME do?
>>
>> I could come up with countless instances in which Pastors have made 
>> things
>> up in order to convince their followers -- for nothing more than economic
>> gain. Does that mean that ALL religion is hogwash? That all Pastors are
>> out for
>> nothing other than selfish financial gain? That Christianity is built 
>> upon
>> a
>> thrown of lies? Of course not.
>>
>> On the whole, science offers the best model of objective knowledge that 
>> we
>> have. It is not perfect and scientists are not perfect. But to think that
>> ALL
>> scientists who endorse evolution theory are biased -- or, more to the
>> point, to
>> think that Crabtree's 10 links support this claim -- is absurd.
>>
>> If Crabtree was trying to establish the claim that scientists are biased
>> on the
>> basis of his 10 links, then he is guilty of the fallacy of small sample. 
>> I
>> would
>> say the same for anyone who tried to make a similar claim about religion
>> based on 10 links -- which is easy enough to do. The history of science 
>> is
>> extensive and glorious. The case for evolution theory is great, also,
>> which is
>> why the number of biologists working in the area who reject it can be
>> counted
>> on one hand. It would take a billion examples to prove Crabtree's point,
>> and I
>> don't see that coming any time soon.
>>
>> I'd contribute to this forum a bit more if I found ONE conservative who
>> was
>> willing to call Crabtree on the crap that he continually throws out.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
>
>