Honorable Opponents

I have a question for both creationists and evolutionists. Because this is such a great debate, there are many that add their voice to it who have neither the knowledge nor awareness to make any such dialogue more fulfilling. My question is this:
Evolutionists, which creationists writers do you consider honest, informed and respectable opponents. Creationists, which evolutionists do you view as being respectable opponents. Even though each side disagrees with the other there exist honorable individuals from both sides. Let's identify them and give them their credit. Who do you respect from the other side, and what makes you respect them?ApostleAlso congratulations to Montreal Member of Parliament Irwin Cotler who was named federal Justice Minister. He is the first Jewish Justice Minister of Canada.[This message has been edited by Apostle, 12-14-2003]

Apostle,I like this thread. I think that many times it seems that each side has a personal grudge against the other side. Forum rules state argue the issues not the person. As I remind many new members, you have to have a pretty thick skin to stick around this site, you can't take the arguments personally. I have a lot of respect for anyone who can come on here an "take on the establishment" of regular posters.As an admin, I won't just pick from one side:Messenjah, he is one of our youngest regular posters and I have always admired the character and strength it takes to stand up for his beliefs even under assault from some extremely intelligent and educated opponents. That someone of his age has this strength of character says a lot.Truthlover, as a strong believer in both Christianity and evolution, he is a welcome breath of reason in many discussions.Rei, I have often said that "when I grow up I want to be Rei" even though I have 20 years on her . For a 23 year old, she has a bredth of knowledge in numerous subjects that rivals those many, many years older.------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

On the "big name" creationist scene, outside of this forum, I've felt some sort of vague affection for IDist Michael Behe and old earth creationist Hugh Ross. Not that I've followed their output that much.I tried reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", and found it too technical. Behe is, as I see it, a 99% evolutionist, who is trying to find God's fingerprints.On the evolutionist side, I find ex-YEC Glenn Morton to be real interesting.Here at , on the creationist side, I think we thought highly of both TrueCreation and Tranquility Base. I think TC might still be making an occasional appearance, but TB has totally dropped out of sight. TC made some sort of move towards more of an "old earth" position, but in the process his statements ceased to be clear (albeit wrong). Instead he just became evasive - what I sometimes refer to as being a "lawyer creationist".On the evolutionist side, a tend to like to see messages from both Mammuthus and Quetzal, although the bio-jargon tends to easily get beyond me.Well, another one of my wishy-washy responses.Moose

As far as I can remember, only Wounded King sometimes managed to raise the debate to a higher level, when I debated him, to the point where I had to ask fundamental questions such as when is an organism reproduced, at birth, or at adulthood? How to warrant describing an organism in terms of reproduction, when the organism in fact may have no chance of reproducing at all? Is describing organisms in terms of the chance of reproduction basicly the same sort of thing as describing the chance of a tree being struck by lightening?For the rest of it I respect most all evolutionists here equally as much as the evolutionary greats such as Dawkins, Gould, or Darwin. I can see no substantial difference in the quality of original theorizing evolutionists on here sometimes engage in, compared to that of the most influential evolutionists in their most influential works. That's like the spice girls / backstreet boys though, anyone can do it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have to say NosyNed, he never resorts to attacking my beliefs. In my opinion he truly is the most unbiased evolutionist/Atheist I have ever came across here. I can't stress how much I like him for that!
There are many many more! DarwinsTerrier makes quality posts and he really knows his stuff. I could name about eight more so I'll stop here - No I wont ; Crashfrog, Schrafinator, Asgara, Percipient, Dan Carrol, Rei, messenjaH, Sidelined. BRAD MC'FALL !!!!!----------------------------------------------
'Your lack of faith is disturbing' - Darth Vader[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-14-2003]

AsgaraMy original intention was just to make mention of well known opponents in the public spotlight. But I like where this has gone.
At the evc forum, on the evolutionist side, I enjoy the comments given by Nosyned, Darwinsterrier, Mammathus, and Zhimbo. As for creationists, I was not aware there were any, for they have never come to my defence. I am curious to know how individuals view a creationist like Phillip Johnson, or Henry Morris. In my opinion these are two of the more respected, widely known creationists.Apostle

Posted in the wrong mode - content deleted - AM[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-17-2003]

Of the top of my head:Phillip Johnson is a lawyer and an old earth creationist. He seems to accept the fossil record as representing the change of the nature of life on earth, down through time. As such (IMO) he recognizes and accepts the fact of evolution. He, however, attributes these changes to be from a series of special creations. He does not accept the theory of evolution.Henry Morris (Senior I presume, Henry Jr. is also a creationist) - Henry Sr. is deceased (for a fair while now, I believe). He was a young earth creationist (founder of the Institution of Creation Research?), and was trained and worked somewhere in the general area of geology. While his creationist beliefs were staunch, he also did seem to recognise that the worldly evidence seemed to go against young earthism. He seemed to maintain a faith that ultimately, the apparent worldly old earth evidence would be proven wrong.Some of the above (about H.M) I pulled from Kenneth Millers "Finding Darwin's God". I believe I have the source material posted in the "FD'sG" topic. I will track it down, and edit add it to this message.Johnson (again IMO) is much closer to being an evolutionist, that to being a YEC - Certainly, from the evo perspective, that merrits some respect.Morris seemed to have a fairly good touch on the worldy realities, even though he denied their ultimate truth.Once again, I'm pulling this from memory - often a dangerous thing to try.Cheers,
MooseAdded by edit - The Miller / Morris conversationI also posted it at "Terry's Talk Origins", which resulted in a strange conversation, found here

Hi Apostle,
I am pleased to be on your list, though I think the quality of my posts have been rather poor of late due to time constraints and crankiness to rival Moose.I also really enjoyed debating with Tranquility Base who was always willing to listen to what his opponents said without just dismissing their points outright. Another creationist I can't say I enjoyed debating but I found stimulated the most active evolution discussions on this board to date was Peter Borger. Funkmasterfreaky was also a very pleasant debater. I think it is usually a combination of people who stick around and contribute over a longer term and do so consistently (applies equally to the evolution side) and are in some way responsive to what is being said. Even if hostile.

Thanks to Asgara and Mike for mentioning me - I try I guess, in trying to come up with a single opponent who I think deserves mention (out of many - I love debating with you all! Even the kooky Dr.Dino fans who drop by from time to time...), is Brad McFall. I wish he could manage to keep his mind flowing linearly, because it's obvious that he is well read. It's usually just way too much work to try and follow him.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

For the rest of it I respect most all evolutionists here equally as much as the evolutionary greats such as Dawkins, Gould, or Darwin. I can see no substantial difference in the quality of original theorizing evolutionists on here sometimes engage in, compared to that of the most influential evolutionists in their most influential works. That's like the spice girls / backstreet boys though, anyone can do it.

---

That's not a statement of respect at all. Can't you at least try to disguise your overwhelming revulsion? It doesn't make for rational debate when you advertise such obvious emotional issues with a subject....

Henry Morris is a horrible misquoter and sloppy thinker, so I don't have a good opinion of him.Read some of his earlier stuff. He's a real religious wacko that learned to "sound" more scientific later on to try to gain credability.

Morris had a degree in Hydraulic Engineering

Schrafinator,I do not think that I have heard from you before.From my perspective, Dr. Henry Morris seems like a respectable man. While you may disagree with him, to keep this conversation going, you will have to give examples of his misquoting. Also the 'religious wacko' comment is unnecessary and perhaps not accurate.Are there any creationist writers that you do enjoy reading from?Respectfully,
Apostle

Yea, Scharf, I agree.The wacko comment is unnecessary. Give us some quotes and we can attach our own epithet to what we thing of them.