Dr. Daniel C. Peterson is no Ogre

[_Polygamy Porter]

Wait a second here!


Goddammit! You mean this is a fake?:

http://salamandersociety.com/slamtoons/celestial/2006/061006cardinal_zelph_dcpprivatetime.jpg

[_asbestosman]

No seriously, I would like him to give us his reconsiliations of evolutionary theory and biology with LDS theology *(just as you have sometimes done).
He said he had ideas but then declined to put them on the table. I had no plans of mocking him or otherwise ruining the discussion.
I still hope he explains it sometime.

He said that the recent FARMS article talks about Intelligent Design and Mormonism. I'm certainly interested in reading it. Hey, if even Dawkins says that the seeming fine tuning of the universe is not a wholey disreputable reason for believing in God, then maybe there is some logic behind this sort of thing after all. Of course I still think using Fisher's method for design is bunk without reasonable cause to suppose a designer was present. I happen to think there was, but I'm not convinced that it's strong enough to be convincing to skeptics and therefore I'm not so sure that the design argument is very good.

I find the idea behind Richard Swinburn's The Existence of God to be more interesting and more correct than ID--not that I've read his book yet. I think the strongest point of this approach is also the weakest point--it is inherently subjective, at least one's value for the a priori probability of God is. Anyhow, I'll probably have to read it sometime (along with Dawkins' book and a few more by Dennett and of course Penrose--too bad I'm a slow reader).


As to Dr. Peterson's reluctance to speak on Evolution and Mormonism even though I have, it could also be the case that fools boldly go where wise men tread carefully. I think I've sufficiently demonstrated my foolishness. Fortunately for me, I'm foolish enough not to mind too much.

[Jersey Girl]

Polygamy Porter, I would see a fondness for Carmen Miranda as one more positive trait in the winsome category for Dr. Peterson. Chick-chicky-boom.


by the way, your photo http://salamandersociety.com/slamtoons/celestial/2006/061006cardinal_zelph_dcpprivatetime.jpg looks like the work of our friend Moon Quaker.

[_Runtu]

Perhaps it is a result of his years of dealing with various opponents, but too often on the MADB, I find him to be dismissive and glib.

I like Dan well enough. Some people really can't stand him, but I'm not one of them. Once I referred to him as a "jerK" for stating that it's the members' fault for not knowing real church history, and I apologized for it. But yes, dismissive and glib are pretty accurate. Witness yesterday's authoritative "It's stupid" pronouncement in lieu of, you know, a substantive rebuttal.

Even when he substantively responds to a post, he often (note I'm not saying always) injects personal jabs and barbs, which in my mind devalues what he says. I can see that he has a deep knowledge base, but his presentation on that board leaves much to be desired. I can understand that he has personal grudges and such (and some are no doubt deserved), but he's quite good at both playing the victim and rolling around in the mud with his detractors. Nonetheless, I believe that he should be treated fairly, as should anybody who wishes to participate in discussion.

With that being said, i can also confess that sometimes his more good natured zingers can make me chuckle.

Your description is spot on. Maybe he's just one of those people who can't separate the discussion from the personal. I don't know.

[_moksha]

Maybe he's just one of those people who can't separate the discussion from the personal. I don't know.

I think of it in terms of that saying, "that a child who lives with criticism, learns to criticize". Perhaps if he where not so constantly under fire then he would unclench and be more mellow in his pronouncements. Is it not better on our part to bring out the best in people?

[_Dan Vogel]

I see no reason to be overly hateful toward Dr. Peterson.

Me neither. That is, so far. Whenever I see him at MHA meetings, I go up to him to him to say hello. He is always cordial and pleasant. He doesn't seem to take things personally, and neither do I. I remember sitting with him and his wife at some banquet, and we all had a good laugh.

1. He seldom takes on a really strong argument on FAIR or MAD (like mine for instance :)). However, I think he could.
Rather, he swoops in on easy prey. He says that he doesn't want to engage these serious challenges (especially scientific ones) on a messege board and occasionally promisses an article or book on the topic. But then why show up at all? I actually wish he would engage some of the issues that I think are telling. - I think he would get a better and more respectful reception from the more intelligent posters than he thinks.

Perhaps he fears someone will get the better of him and then quote him in print, like he does me and Brent.

2. He can occasionally comes on too strong in the sense that he comes accross with a sort of insulting and condescending tone--usually in short quips. He has gotten me really pissed a couple of times.

He has never angered me ... so far.

Now those complaints don't make him someone to be totally disrespected. Now if you have personal issues with him then that's different--I can't speak to that. Maybe he was an a$$ to you (he was to me a couple times).

Sometimes that's part of his strategy; at other times, his opponents do it to themselves.
[/quote]

[_Runtu]

Maybe he's just one of those people who can't separate the discussion from the personal. I don't know.

I think of it in terms of that saying, "that a child who lives with criticism, learns to criticize". Perhaps if he where not so constantly under fire then he would unclench and be more mellow in his pronouncements. Is it not better on our part to bring out the best in people?

Yep, it is better. I know I have days like he does, so I'm not throwing stones.

[_Runtu]

Me neither. That is, so far. Whenever I see him at MHA meetings, I go up to him to him to say hello. He is always cordial and pleasant. He doesn't seem to take things personally, and neither do I. I remember sitting with him and his wife at some banquet, and we all had a good laugh.

I don't dislike him at all. He's been helpful to me when I was on both sides. He's been dismissive of me, as well. But never mean or nasty or donut-stuffing, or whatever they say he is.

Perhaps he fears someone will get the better of him and then quote him in print, like he does me and Brent.

I thought it was interesting that he suggested John Clark's article on Book of Mormon evidence as proof that archaeology was trending towards support for the Book of Mormon, and yet he never engaged my rebuttal of that article.

He has never angered me ... so far.

Nor I, though I was a little annoyed at his dismissive "it's stupid" statement yesterday.

Sometimes that's part of his strategy; at other times, his opponents do it to themselves.

We all do it to ourselves at times. People who live in glass houses ...

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I know there is a tendency to play pin the tail on Dr. Peterson, but he is no ogre or donkey. He is merely a person working in a job that has the responsibility of trying to provide an apologetic defense of the church. As far as I know he doesn't have the luxury to say, "well yes I agree that this doctrine or this past practice was untrue, unwise or harmful". He must defend the whole shebang. As far as I know, he believes everything he writes.

To some of you that may make him an adversary, but I would like to think he could still be an adversary deserving of respect and dignity. It would help to at least acknowledge some of his winsome qualities. He is smart, well educated and has a fun sense of humor. He has a mustache, which by itself distinguishes him from the average LDS male. I like him for that. Perhaps you too could find something redeeming about him as well.

Anyway, I wondered what your thoughts on the issue of showing some respect to Dr. Peterson might be. Personally, I would very much like to see him post over here.

You're just nicer than I am, but maybe I could give him a couple of points for the mustache. I try to give him credit because people say he's pleasant in real life, but I've only known him in cyberspace where he impresses me as a mean self-important ego-maniac. Maybe the problem is my lack of a sense of humor but the broken record of "oh, yes, Mormons are just so awful" crap and his glee in putting insults to himself in his signature fail to amuse me. Still, I'd like it if he posted here.

[_Mister Scratch]

I see no reason to be overly hateful toward Dr. Peterson.

Me neither. That is, so far. Whenever I see him at MHA meetings, I go up to him to him to say hello. He is always cordial and pleasant. He doesn't seem to take things personally, and neither do I. I remember sitting with him and his wife at some banquet, and we all had a good laugh.

1. He seldom takes on a really strong argument on FAIR or MAD (like mine for instance :)). However, I think he could.
Rather, he swoops in on easy prey. He says that he doesn't want to engage these serious challenges (especially scientific ones) on a messege board and occasionally promisses an article or book on the topic. But then why show up at all? I actually wish he would engage some of the issues that I think are telling. - I think he would get a better and more respectful reception from the more intelligent posters than he thinks.

Perhaps he fears someone will get the better of him and then quote him in print, like he does me and Brent.

This may go some ways towards explaining why he has aimed so many invectives at me. Also, I think that he has been "bested" on certain "serious challenges", and that when this happens, his opponents are swiftly queued and/or banned.


Also a sidenote: What a snappy dresser Professor P. is! Truly, where does he buy his suits? Mr. Mac? Quite stylish indeed!