Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!miller From: miller@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Education of creationists' child Message-ID: <29200170@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 04:28:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200170 Posted: Sun Dec 9 04:28:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 04:23:50 EST References: <1236@dciem.UUCP> Lines: 39 Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-123600:uiucdcs:29200170:000:1885 Nf-From: uiucdcs!miller Dec 9 03:28:00 1984 Martin Taylor writes: >(a) I NEVER suggested that creationists didn't want their children >to learn about evolution, so I suggest that Miller is perhaps using >the same standards of truth in argument that he uses in his newsletters >in net.origin Zat right? Well, golly, I just happened to have saved the following from net.origins, posted by one Martin Taylor: >I originally suggested that the right to determine their children's >education might be taken from creationists > ... >The crimes that are committed in the name of religion are many, but >among the worst must be included refusing a child the nutrition it >requires for mental growth. Would you leave a child with parents >who starve it for food? No? Why then would you leave it with parents >who starve it for mental food? Malnutrition of the brain has the same >general effects in both cases. Gee, Martin, I don't know how else to take what you wrote than to falsely claim creationists don't want their children to learn about evolution. So, yes, I do use the same standard of truth, one which is correct. Now I suppose I could have misunderstood you. If so, perhaps you will be so kind as to interpret said nonsense on "refusing a child the nutrition" and "malnutrition of the brain"? >(b) I have as yet seen no challenge by Miller in net.origins (which >I do read), and so I couldn't have responded even if I wanted to. I can't do much about that, as I have posted two articles on the subject over there. If they didn't get to all machines, then it is beyond my control. At any rate, I intend to confine my replies to that group, as net.politics is too crowded to discuss the implications of a subject already covered by its own group. So Martin, you are free to make any sort of silly claims you wish about creationists in this group; the truth will be contained elsewhere. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois