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