|
|
Re: Are we "special"?
wvanhou237@aol.com
11 Dec 1996 18:48:34 GMT
In article <32AE3009.5C4A@scn.org>, Phillip Bigelow <bh162@scn.org>
writes:
>:
>>
>
>> So the word "special" is a red-flag indicating creationism?
>
>
>Substitute "creationism" with "philosophical beliefs OR creationism".
>Yes. In PA, to me it is a red-flag. I can't speak for anyone else.
>I prefer the more succinct words: derived, apomorphy, plesiomorphy, etc.
>These words don't carry so much biased weight as does "special"
>or "unique".
In other words, words that are unique and/or special ?
----- Snip paragraph about heretical books. -----
>> Do you have a list of red-flag words you could post, or
>> provide a pointer for words that should be avoided?
>
>Well, don't let me stop you from using your own choice of words!
>You can use any terminology you wish to describe the evolution of
>hominids. That doesn't mean I will always enthusiastically agree with
>your usage. I was just pointing out that Paul and Ed Conrad appear
>to share the same premise about humans. Otherwise, they wouldn't
>use the same word. The fact that they are at opposite ends of
>the evolution-creationism debate is not relavent to the point that
>I was making.
> <pb>
>
It would appear that PB does not find fault with the context in which a
word
appears but with the word itself. That, in itself, seems a rather closed
way
of thinking. As in, "if you use a word it has to have the meaning I assign
it ".
To me that sort of thinking harks back to Soviet style science, or to the
rigid
dogmas of The Inquisition.
W F VAN HOUTEN
Older. But wiser ?
|